Skip to main content

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

See other formats


5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



m 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nol to be taken from l lie Librtiry 



EC 1 2 W 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05718 2918 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/4calendarmeetingo1992sanf 






" 



CALENDAR 

MEETING OF 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 
-> BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 25-92-27 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that intake and shelter services to status offenders 
can be practically performed for lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees. (Juvenile Probation Department) 

(b) File 38-92-23 . [Gift - Private] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, to accept and 
expend a gift valued at $15,908 from Ramco Equipment for use by plant 
services employees to maintain and improve the quality of life for hospital's 
residents; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Department of 
Public Health) 

(c) File 94-92-6 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities 
Commission to apply for, accept and expend $14,788,500 from 1993-94 State 
Transit Capital Improvement funds and $14,788,500 from local match funds to 
provide financing for the Nine Municipal Railway Guideway Projects. (Public 
Utilities Commission) 



(d) File 94-92-7 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission to apply for, accept and expend $7,574,454 in Federal 
Section 9 Operating Assistance, $25,000,000 of Federal Section 3 Fixed 
Guideway Capital Assistance, $4,974,542 of Federal Section 9 Capital 
Assistance, $12,400,000 of Federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion 
Management Air Quality Capital Assistance, and $10,530,276 from various 
local match sources such as from State Transit Capital Improvement funds, 
State Urban Rail Bond funds, State Clean Air and Transportation Improvement 
Act Bond funds, Regional Local Match funds such as State Transit Assistance 
funds, Transportation Development Act funds, Bridge Toll Net Revenues, 
Regional Measure One funds, Gas Tax Revenues, Transit Impact Development 
fees, San Francisco Municipal Railway Improvement Corporation funds, the San 
Francisco County Sales Taxes, Port of San Francisco funds, and/or Catellus 
Corporation funds for seven Municipal Railway Projects. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

(e) File 141-92-2.1 . [Grant Private Funds] Resolution authorizing the San 
Francisco Juvenile Probation Department to accept and expend grant monies 
from the San Francisco Foundation ($30,000) and Kaiser Family Foundation 
($25,000) for the development of a multi-disciplinary assessment instrument, 
classification system and workload study; waiving indirect cost; companion 
measure to File 141-92-2. (Juvenile Probation Department) 

(f) File 146-92-61 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, to apply for, accept and expend a grant allocation of up to 
$12,414,697, for Fiscal Year 1992-93 funding from State Department of Health 
Services for California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $150,804 based on 39.93 percent of 
salaries or 1.658646 percent of County Hospital and other Health Services 
CHIP allocations. (Department of Public Health) 

(g) File 146-92-62 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to apply for, accept and expend a 
supplemental grant of $59,647, which includes indirect costs of $6,461 based on 
twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health and Human 
Services, Centers for Disease Control, to supplement the AIDS Surveillance 
Project; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Department of 
Public Health) 

(h) File 146-92-63 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 

Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Service, Department 
of Epidemiology and Disease Control, STD Control Division, to accept and 
expend an augmentation grant of $321,540, which includes indirect costs of 
$34,072, based on twenty percent of personnel salaries, from the Centers for 
Disease Control for the provision of STD Services. (Department of Public 
Health) 

(i) File 146-92-64 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing allocation of 
$3,000,000, from the California Department of Health Services, to continue 
funding the AIDS Drug Program; waiving indirect costs. (Department of Public 
Health) 



3 1223 05718 2918 



-1 



(j) File 146-92-65 . [Grant - Private and State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, as subgrantee, in collaboration with the State 
Department of Mental Health, Children, Youth and Families Branch, as 
primary grantee, to accept and expend a two year extension grant from the 
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of $475,569 with $1,060,000 of matching 
funds from the primary grantee for a total of $1,535,569, which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $133,776 based on nine percent of salaries and 
other allowable costs, from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and indirect 
costs of ten percent from the State Department of Mental Health for the 
provision of a system of care for children and youth who are seriously 
emotionally disturbed and their families; companion measure to File 
146-92-17. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 97-92-35 . [Telecommunications Facilities] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Chapter 22B to assign responsibility to the General Manager of the 
Department of Electricity for designing an improved telecommunications program 
for departments, boards, and commissions of the City and County; General Manager 
to provide detailed action plan to Board of Supervisors. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 8/4/92 - Fiscal Impact) 
(Cont'd from 8/19/92) 

ACTION: 

3. File 100-92-5 . Hearing to consider the impact of State budget cuts on the revenue 
of the City and County of San Francisco. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Continued from 8/26/92) 

ACTION: 

4. File 291-92-1 . Hearing to consider all special funds currently administered by the 
Controller. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: 

5. File 172-92-10 . [Contract] Ordinance authorizing the Chief Probation Officer of the 
Juvenile Probation Department to renew a contract with California Youth Authority 
for diagnostic and treatment services and temporary detention not to exceed ninety 
days; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Juvenile Probation 
Department) 

ACTION: 

6. File 82-92-7 . [Acceptance of Deed - Sewer Easement] Resolution accepting a deed 
from Nihonmachi Parking Corporation to a sewer easement in Assessor's Block 686; 
and adopting the finding pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate 
Department) 

ACTION: 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 31 



7. File 74-92-1 . [Tax Rate Setting] Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for 
City and County purposes for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1993. (Controller) 

ACTION: 

8. File 74-92-2 . [Tax Rate Setting] Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for 
San Francisco Unified School District purposes for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 
1993. (Controller) 

ACTION: 

9. File 74-92-3 . [Tax Rate Setting] Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for 
San Francisco Community College District purposes for the Fiscal Year ending June 
30, 1993. (Controller) 

ACTION: . 

10. File 101-92-2.2 . [Government Funding] Ordinance amending the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93, File No. 101-92-2, Ordinance No. 
249-92, giving effect to revenue changes pursuant to Charter Section 6.208 and 
adjusting appropriations to meet the requirements of the Art Commission and the 
Airport pursuant to Charter Section 6.400, as a pre-requisite to levy a tax pursuant 
to Charter Section 6.208. (Controller) 

ACTION: 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



V 

1 



CITY AND COUNTY 




"Public Library, (Documents (Dept. 
JWmQ Qerry%gtk 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

- BUDGET ANALYST 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

August 31, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: September 2, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting u cUiVlfcN i'S DtPT 

: ^ 2 1992 

6A «l rf*rtn**iwtf>il. 



Item la - File 25-92-27 

Department: Juvenile Probation Department 



Proposed Action: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification that 
intake and shelter services to status offenders can continue 
to be practically performed by a private contractor for a 
lower cost than similar work performed by City employees. 



Shelter, Intake and Central Receiving Facility Services. 
This contract is for shelter, intake and central receiving 
facility services for Status Offenders such as runaway 
youths and youths uncontrollable by parents. The services 
include family counseling and provision of shelter. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in estimated 
savings as follows: 

Lowest Highest 

Salary Step Salary Step 



City Operated Services Costs 

Salaries and Fringe Benefits 
Operating Expenses 
Total 



$755,233 $1,080,714 
151.440 151.440 



$906,673 $1,232,154 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Comments: 



Contract Service Costs 
Contract Cost 

City Probation Officers to Assist 
Contractor 
Total 

Estimated Savings 



Lowest 
Salary Step 

$561,600 

81.027 
$642,627 



Highest 
Salary Step 



$561,600 

115.966 

$677,566 



$264,046 $554,588 



1. Shelter, Intake and Central receiving facility services 
were first certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 
1984 and have been continuously provided by an outside 
contractor since that time. 

2. The Juvenile Probation Department has exercised an 
option to continue its contract with Youth Advocates, Inc. 
for the provision of shelter, intake and central receiving 
facility services, for 1992-93. The Contracted Service Cost 
used for the purpose of this analysis was an informal quote 
from Youth Advocates, Inc. based on 1991-92 costs. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire, with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Attachment 
CHARTER 8.300-1 (Proposition J) QUESTIONNAIRE 



Department Juvenile Court 



Contract Services Shelter and Intake for Status Offenders 



For the term starting approximately July l, 199? through June 30, 1993 



1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Juvenile Hall Counselors: 

3 - 8316 Assistant Counselor 7 - 8320 Counselor, Juvenile Hall 
1 - 8318 Counselor II 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting out? 

None. Eleven positions were cut from budget, but no permanent 
staff were laid off. 

3) Explain dispositon of employees if they were not laid off. 

Permanent employees moved to positions in other parts of Juvenile 
Hall formerly filled by on-call staff. 



4) What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

Juvenile Hall Counselors: 

100% 1 - 8318 Counselor II 100% 10 - 8320 Counselor, Juvenile Hall 

100% 2 - 8320 Relief Counselor 

5) How long have the services been contracted out? 

The contract with Youth Advocates for Central Receiving Facility 

was entered into by Juvenile Probation on February 1, 1984. That contract 

was expanded to include Shelter and Intake for status offenders April 1, 1989. 

6) When was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? 

The first fiscal year for the Central Receiving Facility contract was 
1983/1984. The first fiscal year for the expanded contract was 1988/1989. 



7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

Extensive outreach was accomplished at the Request for Qualifications 
stage seeking potential MBE/WBE providers. 

Youth Advocates is a non-profit agency so it does not fall within 
the purview of MBE/WBE goals. 




Department Represe_;uati V e 
753-7560 



3 Telephone 

RY:ac(85GEN60) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item lb - File 38-92-23 



Department 
Item: 



Description; 



Comments: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (located 
on hospital grounds), to accept and expend a gift valued at 
$15,908 from Ramco Equipment for use by plant services 
employees to maintain and improve the quality of life for the 
hospital's residents, and providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

The DPH reports that Ramco Equipment has donated a gift of 
equipment valued at $15,908, to the LHH. The gift consists of 
the following items: 

Item Value 

Vertical/Horizontal Band Saw (1) $4,980 

Vertical/Horizontal Coolant Assembly Pump (1) 277 

Vertical/Horizontal Saw Blade (1) 12 

50-Ton Heavy Duty Press ( 1) 4,210 

50-Ton Heavy Duty Press Kit (1) 315 

6,000-lb Mobile Shop Hand Hoist (1) 3,360 
1,000-lb Sidervender Hydraulic 

Truck Bid Hoists (2) 2,500 

6" All-Steel Vises (2) 254 

Total $15,908 

The gift has already been received by the LHH and the 
equipment items are currently in storage, pending the Board 
of Supervisors approval of the proposed legislation. 

1. The LHH reports that the Vertical/Horizontal Band Saw, 
Coolant Assembly Pump and Saw Blade would be used to 
fabricate hospital equipment parts that are no longer 
available, thus increasing the life of existing equipment. It 
would also allow LHH to make parts that are needed for 
immediate use so as to limit the downtime of patient care 
equipment. The 50-Ton Heavy Duty Press would be used to 
facilitate the removal and installation of bearings from shafts 
of various hospital equipment and patient wheelchairs. The 
LHH advises that the use of a heavy duty press reduces 
installation and removal times and increases the life of the 
newly installed bearing. The one 6,000-lb Hand Hoist and two 
1,000-lb Hydraulic Truck Hoists would be used to transport 
machinery to and from the Hospital's maintenance shop. 
Repairs made in the shop instead of the field would reduce 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
HUDCJKT ANALYST 



'Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



the downtime of the equipment. The Steel Vises would be 
used to repair equipment in the machine shop. 

2. Mr. Steve Tessier of the LHH reports that Ramco 
Equipment, a North Carolina based company, participated in 
a local trade show and made the decision to donate the 
equipment from the show to various public agencies for 
public relations and goodwill purposes, and to avoid shipping 
and handling costs to return the equipment to the company 
base. 

3. Mr. Tessier advises that any cost to repair this equipment 
would be absorbed in the LHH's ongoing maintenance 
budget. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item lc -File 94-92-6 



Department: 

Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution to authorize the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
to apply for, accept and expend funds from the 1993-94 State 
Transit Capital Improvement funds and local match funds to 
provide financing for nine Municipal Railway Guideway 
Projects. 



Grant Amount: 

Local Match: 
Grant Period: 
Project Budget 



State Transit Capital Improvement funds 
Local Match Program Funds 
Total 

(See Project Budget) 

July 1993 through June 1997 



$14,788,500 

14.788.500 

$29,577,000 





1993-94 Request 


State 


Local 


Total 


Funds 


Match 


Request 


$1,045,000 


$1,045,000 (1) 


$2,090,000 


985,000 


985,000 (1) 


1,970,000 


1,870,000 


1,870,000 (1) 


3,740,000 


628,000 


628,000 (1) 


1,256,000 


146,500 


146,500 (1) 


293,000 


5,000,000 


5,000,000 (1) 


10,000,000 


64,000 


64,000 (2) 


128,000 


50,000 


50,000 (2) 


100,000 


5.000.000 


5.000.000(1) 


10.000.000 


$14,788,500 


$14,788,500 


$29,577,000 



Project 

MUNI Metro Turnback 
Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 
Trolley Bus Purchase 
14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehab. 
Metro Accessibility Improvements 
Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility 
Cable Car Vehicle Renovation 
Historic Streetcar Renovation 
New Generation LRV Purchase 
Total 



(1) Transportation Sales Tax provides funds to build transportation capital 
improvements, to rehabilitate existing facilities and fund operations of the new 
facilities. The sales tax will generate over $45 million annually over the next 
eighteen (18) years to support transportation needs in the City. 

(2) Bridge Toll and Regional Measure One Bridge Toll Revenues are distributed 
by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for transit capital 
projects. 

Description: MUNI Metro Turnback - Construction of the MUNI Metro 

subway tunnel extension east of the BART/MUNI 
Embarcadero Station and under Justin Herman Park, coming 
to grade through a portal in the median of a rebuilt 
Embarcadero Boulevard. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGE T ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation - The phased 
rehabilitation of MUNI's articulated diesel coaches to extend 
the useful life beyond the standard of twelve years. Starting in 
1992-93, twenty-five (25) trolley coaches will be rehabilitated 
each year. 

Trolley Bus Purchase - This project includes the phased 
replacement of 345 trolley coaches for the Municipal Railway. 
The final fleet mix is planned to be 213 articulated and 100 
standard trolley coaches. 

14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehabilitation - This project 
includes the replacement of worn overhead, underground and 
surface components on the Municipal Railway's 14-MISSION 
trolley coach lines. 

Metro Accessibility Improvements - Additional accessibility 
improvements for the surface and underground operation of 
the MUNI Metro Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) service. The project 
includes the design and construction of accessibility 
improvements to aid the physically challenged MUNI riders. 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility - This project includes 
the acquisition of a site, the design and construction of a new 
Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) facility for the Municipal Railway. 
This new facility would relieve crowding at existing facilities 
and provide storage and maintenance space for expanded LRV 
service. 

Cable Car Vehicle Renovation - This is an on-going capital 
improvement program to renew the Municipal Railway's 
historic Cable Car fleet through a major rebuilding of roughly 
two cable cars per year. 

Historic Streetcar Renovation - Capital improvement program 
to extend lives of existing Municipal Railway's historic 
streetcars. 

New Generation Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Purchase - A 
continuation of the phased vehicle purchase of 170 new 
generation LRVs. 

Indirect Costs: The PUC has included an amount of $651,675 in the grant 

request to cover Department and City-wide overhead costs. 

Comments: 1. The total $29,577,000 in State and local match funds is 

divided into seven phases among the nine listed projects as 
follows: 



BOARD OF ST IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

In House Project Engineering/Construction Management 

MUNI Metro Turnback $ 65,312 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 113,654 

Trolley Bus Purchase 215,769 

14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehabilitation 157,000 

Metro Accessibility Improvements 91,563 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility 312,500 

Cable Car Vehicle Renovation 7,483 

Historic Streetcar Renovation 5,846 

New Generation LRV Purchase 576.923 

Total $1,546,050 

Professional Services 

MUNI Metro Turnback $ 313,500 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 147,750 

Trolley Bus Purchase 280,500 

Metro Accessibility Improvements 146,500 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility 1,500,000 

New Generation LRV Purchase 750.000 

Total $3,138,250 

Construction 

MUNI Metro Turnback $1,672,000 

14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehabilitation 1.004.800 

Total $2,676,800 

Equipment Purchases 

Trolley Bus Purchase $ 3,179,000 

New Generation LRV Purchase 8.500.000 

Total $11,679,000 

Contract Equipment Rehabilitation 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation $1.674.500 

Total $1,674,500 

In-House Equipment Rehabilitation 

Cable Car Vehicle Renovation $88,832 

Historic Streetcar Renovation . 69.40Q 

Total $158,232 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

Parts - Term Purchase Agreements 

Cable Car Vehicle Renovation $29,440 

Historic Streetcar Renovation 23.000 

Total $52,440 

Right-of-Way Purchase 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility S8.000.000 

Total $8,000,000 

Indirect Costs 

MUNI Metro Turnback $ 39,187 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 34,096 

Trolley Bus Purchase 64,731 

14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehabilitation 94,200 

Metro Accessibility Improvements 54,938 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility 187,500 

Cable Car Vehicle Renovation 2,245 

Historic Streetcar Renovation 1,754 

New Generation LRV Purchase 173.077 

Total $651,728 

Summary Total $29,577,000 

2. Ms. Gail Bloom of the PUC Finance Bureau advises that the 
PUC has already selected prime and sub-contracting firms for 
the professional services the MUNI Metro Turnback, Metro 
East Light Rail Vehicle Facility and New Generation LRV 
Purchase projects. The prime and sub-contractors with 
percentages of MBE/WBE/LBE participation for these projects 
are as follows: 

Percent 
Participation 
MUNI Metro Turnback 

Prime - Bechtel National, Inc. 61.3 

Alagia-Crosby Engineers (MBE) 5.5 

Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc. (MBE) 11.8 

John Warren (MBE) 2.0 

PGH Wong Engineering, Inc. (MBE) 1.0 

Don Todd Associates (MBE) 4.6 

Interpacific Technologies (MBE) 8.4 

Kaye Bernstein & Assoc. (WBE) 3.4 

Public Affairs Management (WBE) 1.0 

Quasar Engineering, Inc. (WBE) 1.0 

Total 100.0 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Percent 
Participation 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle Facility 

Prime - Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and 

Douglas, Inc. 60.1 

Baseline Environmental (WBE) 1.7 

Booz-Allen & Hamilton 2.4 

Chandhary & Assoc, Inc. (MBE) 4 2 

Don Todd (MBE) 2.6 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (MBE) 7.7 

Jonas & Associates (WBE) 1.4 

Manna Consultants (MBE) 2.5 

Morrison-Knudsen Engineers 2.7 

Nelson/Nygaard (WBE) 4.0 

Outside Reviewers 0.7 

Public Affairs Management (WBE) 3.4 

Toronto Transit Consultants 0.6 

J. Warren & Associates (MBE) 1.2 

Wilson, Ihrig & Associates 1.5 

R. Wong (MBE) _33 

Total 100.0 

New Generation LRV Purchase 

Prime - Booz-Allen & Hamilton 66.9 

Acex Technologies (MBE) 5.3 

Don Todd Associates (MBE) 20.4 

Transit Performance Engineering (WBE) 7.4 

Total 100.0 

3. Ms. Bloom also advises that PUC has completed a Request 
for Qualifications (RFQ) process for the selection of a 
contractor for the construction of the MUNI Metro Turnback 
project (total construction cost of $1,672,000 in this legislation). 
At the present time, PUC has determined that five of the nine 
contractors have the necessary qualifications to participate in a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) which is pending. 

4. Mr. Wilbert Taylor of the PUC Finance Bureau advises that 
the PUC has not begun their process to develop a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) for certain project phases including 
Professional Services, Construction, Equipment 
Purchases/Equipment Rehabilitation totaling $16,605,050 as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Professional Services 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 
Trolley Bus Purchase 
Metro Accessibility Improvements 
Subtotal 


$147,750 
280,500 
146.500 


$ 574,750 


Construction 

MUNI Metro Turnback 
14-MISSION Trolley Overhead Rehab. 
Subtotal 


$1,672,000 

1.004.800 


2,676,800 


Equipment Purchases 
Trolley Bus Purchase 
New Generation LRV Purchase 
Subtotal 


$ 3,179,000 
8.500.000 


$11,679,000 



Equipment Rehabilitation 

Articulated Diesel Bus Rehabilitation 1.674.500 

Subtotal 1.674.500 

Total $16,605,050 

5. Mr. Taylor also advises that the current MBE/WBE/LBE 
goal for MUNI capital projects for FY 1991-92 is 32 percent and, 
through the third quarter, the actual amount in 
MBE/WBE/LBE contracts is 31 percent, one percent lower than 
their stated goal. 

Recommendation: Reserve $16,605,050 for professional services ($574,750), for 
construction ($2,676,800), for equipment purchase ($11,679,000), 
and for equipment rehabilitation ($1,674,500) as identified in 
Comment 4 above, pending identification of the contractors, the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contracts and the contract cost 
details. 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 



Item Id -File 94-92-7 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Grant Period: 



Source of Funds: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
to apply for, accept, and expend Federal Section 9 Operating 
Assistance, Federal Section 3 Fixed Guideway Capital 
Assistance, Federal Section 9 Capital Assistance, Federal 
Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Management Air 
Quality Capital Assistance, and various local and regional 
match sources such as State Transit Capital Improvement 
funds, State Urban Rail Bond funds, State Clean Air and 
Transportation Improvement Act Bond funds, State Transit 
Assistance funds, Transportation Development Act funds, 
Bridge Toll Net Revenues, Regional Measure One funds, Gas 
Tax Revenues, Transit Impact Development fees, San 
Francisco Municipal Railway Improvement Corporation 
funds, the San Francisco County Sales Taxes, Port of San 
Francisco funds, and/or Catellus Corporation funds for six 
Municipal Railway Capital Projects and a subsidy of funds for 
the operation of the Municipal Railway. 

Federal Funds $49,948,996 
Match from local and regional match sources 

(as identified above) 10.530.276 

Total $60,479,272 

October 1992 through September 30, 1995 (Federal FY's) 

Federal Section 9 Operating Assistance $ 7,574,454 

Federal Section 3 Fixed Guideway Capital 

Assistance 25,000,000 

Federal Section 9 Capital Assistance 4,974,542 

Federal Surface Transportation Program/ 

Congestion Management Air Quality 

Capital Assistance 12.400.000 

Total Federal Grant Funds $49,948,996 

Local Match (PUC will identify the specific 
sources of funds at a later time from the 
above list of local and regional sources) 10.530.276 

Total Funds $60,479,272 



BOARD OK SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 

Project Budget 



Project 



1992-93 Request 



Federal 
Funds 



Capital Projects (80/20 Federal/Local Funding) 

MUNI Metro Turnback $33,800,000 

14-MISSION Reconstruction 3,186,852 

MUNI Metro Accessibility 412,000 

Cable Car Vehicle Rehabilitation 514,000 

Metro East/Lllinois Street Bridge 3,600,000 

Capital Projects (85/15 Federal-ZLocal Funding) 

Trolley Coach Replacement 861,690 



Operating Assistance 



7.574.454 



Local 
Match 



5,450,000 
796,713 
103,000 
128,500 
900,000 



152,063 




Total 



Description; 



$49,948,996 $10,530,276 



Total 
Request 



$42,250,000 

3,983,565 

515,000 

642,500 

4,500,000 



1,013,753 

7.574.454 
$60,479,272 



MUNI Metro Turnback - This project allows the capacity of the 
MUNI Metro subway to be increased and facilitates the further 
extension of MUNI Metro service to Mission Bay and the 
Caltrain Depot. 

14-MISSION Reconstruction - This project provides for the 
continued phased design and reconstruction of the trolley 
overhead system serving the Municipal Railway's 14- 
MISSION trolley route. 

MUNI Metro Accessibility Improvements - This project 
provides for the phased design and construction of accessibility 
improvements serving the MUNI Metro system. The project 
provides for the development and installation of safety and 
security improvements to aid the physically challenged MUNI 
riders. The funds requested will support accessibility 
improvements to the MUNI Metro Stations. 

Cable Car Vehicle Rehabilitation - This project provides for the 
total reconstruction of two cable cars on an annual basis. 

Metro East Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Facility and Illinois Street 
Bridge - This project provides for the development of a new 
storage and maintenance facility to accommodate additional 
Light Rail Vehicles (LRV), with long-term expansion 
potential. The project will be developed in several phases — 
project planning and conceptual design, detailed design, 
advanced construction activities including site acquisition and 
long-lead material purchases, and construction. The project 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 

includes off-site mitigation and early relocation of railroad 
tracks from the Metro East site. The tracks serve the Port of 
San Francisco and would be replaced with a bridge over Islais 
Creek at Illinois Street. 

Trolley Coach Replacement - MUNI will continue the phased 
replacement of its fleet of trolley coaches with the purchase of 
one trolley bus and replacement parts for other trolley buses 
already in service. 

Indirect Costs: The PUC has included an amount of $1,414,615 in the grant 

request to cover Department and City-wide overhead costs as 
described by individual project in Comment 2 below. 

Comments: 1. The subject Federal application, which includes $7,574,454 

in Federal Section 9 Operating Assistance Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) funds to MUNI for FY 1992-93, is based 
on a Federal formula using U. S.. Census information and 
ridership data. The amount of $7,574,454 is $66,623 more than 
the $7,507,831 currently approved in MUNI's FY 1992-93 
budget. 

2. The total $52,904,818 ($60,479,272 total grant and local match 
request less $7,574,454 in FTA Funds requested for MUNI 
operations) in Federal and local match funds is divided into 
five expenditure categories among the six capital projects as 
follows: 



In-House Project Engineering and Contract Management 



MUNI Metro Turnback 
14-MISSION Reconstruction 
MUNI Metro Accessibility 
Cable Car Vehicle Rehabilitation 
Metro East/Illinois Street Bridge 
Trolley Coach Replacement 
Subtotal 



$1,320,312 

694,251 

89,754 

37,067 

421,875 

58.486 



$2,621,745 



Professional Services 

MUNI Metro Turnback 
Metro East/Illinois Street Bridge 
Trolley Coach Replacement 
Subtotal 



6,337,500 

3,825,000 

76.031 



10,238,531 



Construction 

MUNI Metro Turnback 
14-MISSION Reconstruction 
MUNI Metro Accessibility 
Subtotal 



33,800,000 

2,987,674 

386.250 



37,173,924 



BOARD OK SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 

Equipment Purchase 

Trolley Coach Replacement $861.690 

Subtotal $861,690 

In-House Equipment Purchase and Rehabilitation 

Cable Car Parts Term Purchase 148,579 

Cable Car Rehabilitation 445.734 

Subtotal 594,313 

Indirect Costs 

MUNI Metro Turnback 792,188 

14-MISSION Reconstruction 301,640 

MUNI Metro Access 38,996 

Cable Car Vehicle Rehabilitation 11,120 

Metro East/Illinois Street Bridge 253,125 

Trolley Coach Replacement 17.546 

Subtotal 1.414.615 

Total $52,904,818 

3. Ms. Gail Bloom of the PUC Finance Bureau advises that the 
PUC has already selected prime and sub-contracting firms for 
the professional services associated with the MUNI Metro 
Turnback and the Metro East LRV Facility and Rlinois Street 
Bridge projects. These firms, including their MBE/WBE/LBE 
status, are as follows: 

Percent 
Participation 
MUNI Metro Turnback 

Prime - Bechtel National, Inc. 61.3 

Alagia-Crosby Engineers (MBE) 5.5 

Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc. (MBE) 11.8 

John Warren (MBE) 2.0 

PGH Wong Engineering, Inc. (MBE) 1.0 

Don Todd Associates (MBE) 4.6 

Interpacific Technologies (MBE) 8.4 

Kaye Bernstein & Assoc. (WBE) 3.4 

Public Affairs Management (WBE) 1.0 

Quasar Engineering, Inc. (WBE) 1.0 

Total 100.0 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 



Metro East light Rail Vehicle Facility and 
Illinois Street Bridge 

Prime - Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and 

Douglas, Inc. 
Baseline Environmental (WBE) 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton 
Chandhary & Assoc, Inc. (MBE) 
Don Todd (MBE) 

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (MBE) 
Jonas & Associates (WBE) 
Manna Consultants (MBE) 
Morrison-Knudsen Engineers 
Nelson/Nygaard (WBE) 
Outside Reviewers 
Public Affairs Management (WBE) 
Toronto Transit Consultants 
J. Warren & Associates (MBE) 
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates 
R. Wong (MBE) 

Total 



Percent 
Participation 



60.1 
1.7 
2.4 
4.2 
2.6 
7.7 
1.4 
2.5 
2.7 
4.0 
0.7 
3.4 
0.6 
1.2 
1.5 
3.3 
100.0 



4. Ms. Bloom also advises that PUC has completed a Request 
for Qualifications (RFQ) process for the selection of a 
contractor for the construction of the MUNI Metro Turnback 
project (total construction cost of $33,800,000 in this legislation). 
At the present time, PUC has determined that five of the nine 
contractors have the necessary qualifications to participate in a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) which is pending. 

5. Mr Jerry Levine of the PUC Finance Bureau advises that 
Requests for Proposal (RFP) for Professional Services and 
Construction costs are pending, as follows: 



Professional Services 

Trolley Coach Replacement 
Subtotal 

Construction 

MUNI Metro Turnback 
14-MISSION Reconstruction 
MUNI Metro Accessibility 
Subtotal 



$ 76.031 



33,800,000 

2,987,674 

386.250 



$ 76,031 



37,173,924 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1990 

Equipment Purchase 

Trolley Coach Replacement $861,690 

Subtotal $ 861.690 

Total $38,111,645 

6. Mr. Levine also advises that the current MBE/WBE/LBE 
goal for MUNI capital projects for FY 1991-92 is 32 percent and, 
through the second quarter, the actual amount in 
MBE/WBE/LBE contracts is 31 percent, one percent lower than 
their stated goal. 

Recommendation: Reserve $38,111,645 for professional services ($76,031), for 
construction ($37,173,924) and for equipment purchase 
($861,690) as identified in Comment 5 above, pending 
identification of the contractors, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of 
the contractors and the the contractors' cost details. 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

Item le - File 141-92-2.1 



Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Required Match: 



Juvenile Probation Department 

Resolution authorizing the Juvenile Probation Department to 
accept and expend grant monies from the San Francisco 
Foundation and the Kaiser Family Foundation for the 
development of a multi-disciplinary assessment instrument, 
classification system and workload study, and waiving 
indirect costs. 

$55,000 



August 4, 1992 through June 30, 1993 



Kaiser Family Foundation 
San Francisco Foundation 
Total 



$30,000 

25.000 

$55,000 



Multi-Disciplinary Assessment Instrument 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
authorizing the Juvenile Probation Department to apply for 
the proposed grant funds (File 141-92-2). The Department is 
now requesting authorization to accept and expend these 
grant monies. 

The proposed grant funds would be used to develop and 
implement new multi-disciplinary assessment and case 
management procedures for high risk juvenile offenders. 
These procedures would enable the Juvenile Probation 
Department to 1) measure accurately and objectively the risk 
that youths pose to public safety, and 2) provide the 
information necessary to link individual youth and their 
families with services to interrupt the cycle of juvenile crime. 

With technical assistance provided by a consultant(s), the 
Department would develop sound assessment tools; design a 
classification system based on youths' needs and risk levels; 
train a multi-disciplinary team to conduct assessments and 
develop service plans; analyze Department workload 
management; and design a management information 
system for assessment and case management information. 

$35,000 which is included in the Juvenile Probation 
Department's 1992-93 budget. Therefore, the total project 
budget would be $90,000 ($55,000 in proposed grant funds and 
$35,000 in matching General Fund monies). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Project Budget: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



The entire $90,000 in project funds would be used for 
contractual services. 

The granting agencies prohibit the use of grant funds for 
indirect costs. Therefore, the Department is requesting that 
indirect costs be waived. 

1. The Juvenile Probation Department reports that a 
contractor has not, as yet, been selected to conduct the multi- 
disciplinary assessment and case management procedures. 
Therefore, the proposed legislation should be amended to 
reserve the $55,000 in grant project funds pending the 
Department's provision of contract budget details and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractor. 

2. Attached is the grant application summary, as prepared by 
the Juvenile Probation Department, for the proposed grant 
monies. 

3. The Disability Access Checklist is included in the file. 

Amend the proposed legislation to reserve $55,000 in grant 
funds, pending the provision of contract budget details and 
the MBW/WBE status of the contractor and approve the 
legislation as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Letter of Intent to File a Grant Application 
(submitted in triplicate) 

To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

Request for authorization to submit a grant application as described 
below: 

Department: Juvenile Probation Department 

Contact Person: Fred Jordan, Jr. - Chief Probation Officer 

Project Title: Multi-Disciplinary Assessment Instrument 

Grant Source: San Francisco Foundation,. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The Juvenile Probation Department will develop a assessment instrument for high 
risk juvenile" offenders. This new method of assessment will make use of a multi- 
disciplinary team, act as a basis for classification, workload analysis and allow 
the formulation of individual treatment plans for targeted youth. This assessment 
instrument will evaluate problems, needs and risk to these youth in the areas of 
physical health, mental health, substance abuse, vocational training, academic 
achievement, family dynamics and psychosocial history. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $90,000 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $25,000 San Francisco Foundation 

$30,000 request granted w i tn Kaiser Family Foundation 

Required Matching Funds: $3 5,000 - 

Number of Positions Created and Funded: Depends on principle consultant selected 

and sub-contractors needed 
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: Total Amount 

Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? Yes ~ RFP is bein 9 develo ped. 



Term of Grant: J- year 

S.F. Foundation - March 9, 1992 
Date Department Notified of Available funds: Kai ser Foundation - May 19. 1992 

Application Due Date: Application c omple te - funding awards final 

Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation) : 

1) RFP has been developed - draft attached 

2) Publish and circulate in San' Francisco community requesting .bids 

3) Bidders conference to be scheduled 

4) Appropriate commissions to be notified 

5) Select review panel 

6) Select principle contractor with emphasis on minority contractors 
based on criteria identified in RFP 

7) Certification of contract ~ 



Assessment of Need for Grant Funding: 

High risk youth are referred to the Juvenile Probation Department for serious 
offenses, repeat offenses and as youth identified as posing a 'risk to public 
safety. They remain in the Department's custody for 5 to 6 weeks pending case 
dispositions in court. A limited range* of services are provided to these youth 
. from other city departments and non-profit agencies . Por these youth the Juvenile 
Probation Department would like to develop a new, comprehensive and more 
individualized method of assessing problems, needs and risk to the community. The 
new method would take a multi-disciplinary approach and coordinate the contribution 
of several independent agencies. . 




21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item If - File 146-92-61 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
apply for, accept and expend a grant allocation of up to 
$12,414,697 for Fiscal Year 1992-93 funding from the State 
Department of Health Services for California Healthcare for 
Indigents Program (CHIP) funds, which includes indirect 
costs in the amount of $150,804 based on 39.93 percent of 
salaries or 1.658646 percent of County Hospital and other 
Health Services CHIP allocations. 

Up to $12,414,697 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

State Department of Health Services 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) 

In 1988, the State Legislature passed the Tobacco Tax and 
Health Protection Act, as well as Assembly Bill 99 (AB99) and 
Assembly Bill 75 (AB75), which implemented the legislation. 
Under AB75, Counties may obtain funds for the California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) in order to 
reimburse hospitals, physicians, and other medical service 
providers for the cost of providing health care services to 
indigent people. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Public Health (DPH) to apply for, accept, and expend up to 
$12,414,697 in CHIP funds, including $150,804 for indirect 
costs, for fiscal year 1992-93. These funds would be used to 
reimburse San Francisco General Hospital, 10 private 
hospitals, and a number of private physicians who have 
enrolled in the program for the cost of providing health care 
services to indigent people. 

DPH reports that the actual amount of grant funds available 
in 1992-93 will not be known until the State adopts a final 
1992-93 budget. Therefore, DPH has requested authorization 
to expend up to $12,414,697, which is the amount received in 
1991-92. Reductions in the grant amount would result in 
equivalent reductions in available funds to reimburse 
providers for the cost of health care for indigent persons. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Budget: 



The proposed $12,414,697 budget includes $164,981 in indirect 
costs, $526,604 in operating expenses for the CHIP program, 
and $11,723,112 for reimbursements to health care providers 
for the cost of providing care to indigent persons. These 
amounts would be distributed among the three Funds as 
follows: 

ALLOCATION OF AB 75 GRANT FUNDS 



Reimbursement Indirect Admin. 



Total 



Revenues 


Costs 


Expenses 


Grant 


$6,848,294 

1,220,292 

1,058,983 

[) 2.595.543 


$119,637 
45.344 


$245,045 

71,022 

117,664 

92.873 


$7,212,976 
1,291,314 
1,176,647 
2.733.760 


$11,723,112 


$164,981 


$526,604 


$12,414,697 



Fund 

Hospital Services Fund 

County Hospital (SFGH) 

Private Hospitals 
Physician Services Fund 
Other Health Services Fund (SFGH) 2.595.543 

Total Grant Allocations 

Personnel and operating expenses for the program are 
budgeted at $619,549 which exceeds the budgeted allocation 
for administrative expenses of $526,604 by $92,945. The $92,945 
shortfall would be paid by funds carried forward from prior 
years for administrative expenses, according to DPH. The 
proposed $619,549 budget for personnel and operating 
expenses is as follows: 



PERSONNEL 








Salaries 








Class 




FTE 


Amount 


Sr. Clerk Typist 




1.0 


$28,582 


Secretary II 




1.5 


41,722 


Senior Accountant 




1.0 


41,656 


Head Accountant 




1.0 


51287 


Principal Administrative 


Analyst 


1.0 


63,554 


Systems & Procedures Supervisor 


1.0 


55,494 


Health Worker IV 




1.0 


34,348 


Senior Health Planner 




1.0 


44,970 


Contracts Manager 




1.0 


45,179 


Special salary savings 




(0.56) 


(23.975) 



Total Salaries 



8.94 



Fringe Benefits (@ 25.7 percent) 
Total Personnel 



$382,817 
98.527 



$481,344 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



OPERATING EXPENSES 

Professional Services 
Office Equipment 
Copy Machine 
Other 

Auto Mileage 

Travel 

Staff development and training 

Postage, subscriptions, and printing 

Telephone 

Office supplies 

Furniture 

Rental of Property 

Data Processing 

Personal Computer and Printer 

Services of City Attorney 

Total Operating Expenses 



$78,593 

500 

1,200 

2,300 

1,065 

2,400 

3,500 

4,000 

8,981 

1,815 

6,098 

16,848 

725 

4,680 

5.500 



$138.205 



TOTAL PERSONNEL & OPERATING EXPENSES $619,549 



1992-93 Grant Funds for Administration 



(526.604) 



Personnel and Operating Expenses to be Paid 

From Funds Carried Forward from Prior Years $92,945 



Required Match: None 



No. of Persons 
Served: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Approximately 55,500 annually 

Indirect costs are allowed based on either 39.93 percent of 
salaries or 1.658646 percent of the combined allocations to the 
County Hospital and to the Other Health Services Fund. DPH 
has used the 1.658666 percent method. The proposed 
resolution states that indirect costs have been estimated as 
$150,804, which is in error. 

Based on the budget provided by DPH, indirect costs should be 
calculated at $164,981, based on 1.658646 percent of the 
combined allocation of $9,946,736 for the County Hospital 
(allocated $7,212,976) and the Other Health Services Fund 
(allocated $2,733,760). 

1. Mr. Jeff Leong, CHIP Project Coordinator for DPH, states 
that authorization has been requested from the Board of 
Supervisors to apply for, accept and expend up to $12,414,697 
in CHIP funds for 1992-93, because this is the actual revenue 
which San Francisco received for the program in 1991-92. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



The actual amount to be allocated by the State in 1992-93 will 
not be known until the State budget is adopted, but Mr. Leong 
does not expect the State to allocate funds at a higher level in 
1992-93 than in 1991-92. 

2. AB 75 authorizes reimbursements to public and private 
hospitals and to private medical providers for the cost of 
health care for indigent persons. The reimbursements are 
made from three funds established pursuant to the 
legislation. The Hospital Services Fund is used to reimburse 
San Francisco General Hospital and 10 private hospitals. 
The Physician Services Fund is used to reimburse private 
physicians who have enrolled in the program. The Other 
Health Services Fund is used in San Francisco to reimburse 
San Francisco General Hospital for the cost of indigent care. 

According to Mr. Leong, the amounts available for each 
Fund are determined by the amount of grant funds allocated 
to each Fund by the State, and San Francisco has no 
discretion to transfer monies from one Fund to another. DPH 
must appropriate the monies allocated to the Hospital 
Services Fund and the Physician Services Fund according to 
the mandates of State legislation, according to Mr. Leong. 
DPH does not have discretion to determine what share of the 
Hospital Services Fund will be appropriated to San Francisco 
General Hospital or to private hospitals. 

The Health Commission does have discretion to determine 
how appropriations will be made from the Other Health 
Services Fund, according to Mr. Leong. Mr. Leong states 
that the Health Commission has appropriated these funds to 
San Francisco General Hospital since the inception of the 
CHIP program, and will continue this practice in 1992-93. 

3. According to Ms. Yvonne Lowe of San Francisco General 
Hospital, the Hospital's 1992-93 budget includes $9,091,989 in 
expected revenues under the CHIP program. 

If the State allocates $12,414,697 in CHIP funds for 1992-93, 
equal to 1991-92 actual allocations, San Francisco General 
Hospital would receive reimbursements of $9,443,837, based 
on the budget submitted by Mr. Leong. This would consist of 
$6,848,294 from the Hospital Services Fund and $2,595,543 
from the Other Health Services Fund. 

Thus, if an amount equal to last year's CHIP allocation is 
received, SFGH would realize revenues approximately 
$351,848 higher than the 1992-93 budget estimate ($9,443,837 
SFGH share of $12.4 million less $9,091,989 budgeted for 1992- 
93). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



4. As previously noted, the State allocates specific amounts of 
grant funds to each of the three Funds established for the 
CHIP program. Although State allocations are expected to be 
reduced in 1992-93 from the 1991-92 level, Mr. Leong states 
that it is not possible at this time to determine what the actual 
1992-93 CHIP allocations to San Francisco will be. According 
to Mr. Leong, it is also not known whether the State would 
allocate the lower revenues among the Funds in proportion to 
previous allocations, or alter the distribution of revenues to 
County hospitals, private hospitals, private physicians, and 
other health services for 1992-93. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that, since the actual amount of 
the funds to be allocated by the State cannot be determined at 
this time, any proposed budget governing expenditure of the 
proposed grant funds is unreliable. Therefore, authorization 
to accept and expend any grant monies which are allocated 
by the State should be deferred until such time as the actual 
amount of the grant and a reliable budget for expenditure of 
the grant funds can be submitted. 

The proposed resolution should therefore be amended on 
page 2, lines 3 through 8, to delete references to acceptance 
and expenditure of the grant funds. Lines 2 through 9 of the 
proposed resolution should read, "...the Board of Supervisors 
does hereby authorize the Department of Public Health to 
apply for California Healthcare for Indigents Program funds 
for Fiscal Year 1992-93 for up to $12,414,697, including 
indirect costs based on 1.658646 percent of County Hospital 
and Other Health Services CHIP allocations, along with the 
provision of a number of assurances concerning use of such 
funds..." 

6. Although the Budget Analyst recommends authorizing 
DPH only to apply for the grant funds, Mr. Leong has urged 
that authorization to accept and expend the proposed grant 
funds, up to $12,414,697, should also be granted at this time. 
Mr. Leong states that CHIP reimbursements to private 
hospitals and physicians are due in December, 1992, and he 
is concerned that these payments cannot be made on time if 
authorization to accept and expend the funds is not granted 
at the present time. Mr. Leong states that, since the amounts 
of CHIP allocations for authorized purposes are determined 
by the State, the Finance Committee would have little 
discretion concerning the use of these funds, once the State 
budget is adopted. The Budget Analyst does not concur with 
DPH that a review by the Finance Committee would result in 
any significant delay in payments to private hospitals and 
physicians. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

The Budget Analyst notes that authorization to apply for, 
accept, and expend CHIP funding in 1991-92 was not 
reviewed by the Finance Committee, but was approved for 
immediate adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Because of 
the potential effect of reduced CHIP grant allocations on the 
services provided by San Francisco General Hospital, the 
Budget Analyst believes that it is especially important that 
this grant program be reviewed by the Finance Committee 
after the amount of the 1992-93 CHIP allocation has been 
determined. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution on page 2, lines 3 through 
8, as described in Comment No. 5 above, in order to authorize 
DPH to apply for the proposed grant but to delete 
authorization for acceptance and expenditure of the proposed 
grant funds until the amount of the grant is determined, in 
order to enable the Board of Supervisors to review the details 
of the grant budget. 

2. Amend the title of the proposed resolution, consistent with 
Comment No. 5 above. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 

Item lp - File 146-92-62 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Grant Period: 



Public Health 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
AIDS Office, to apply for, accept and expend a supplemental 
grant of $59,647, which includes indirect costs of $6,461 based 
on twenty percent of personnel costs excluding fringe 
benefits, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Centers for Disease Control, to supplement the 
AIDS Surveillance Project; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

$59,647 

September 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 



Source of Funds: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Centers for Disease Control 



Project: 

Number of 
Persons Served; 

Description: 



Project Budget: 



AIDS Surveillance Project 



The population of San Francisco 

The AIDS Surveillance Project is a project that identifies and 
maintains information concerning adult and pediatric AIDS 
cases and incidence of HIV infection in San Francisco. The 
objective of the AIDS Surveillance Project is to generate 
meaningful epidemiologic data about the nature of the 
epidemic in order to identify and address issues of AIDS and 
HIV infection. 

The proposed grant would provide additional funding to 
support the design, implementation and maintenance of the 
AIDS Surveillance Project. Specifically, these funds would be 
used to conduct active lab surveillance for CD4 counts (a 
measure of immune system status) and to match the AIDS 
case registry against other databases maintained by research 
groups, hospitals and tumor registries. 

Personnel 
Programmer Analysts 

(1.3 FTEs for 4 months) $19,457 
Disease Control Investigator 

(1.0 for 4 months) 12.848 

Personnel Subtotal $32,305 

Fringe Benefits at 26 percent 8.399 

Total Personnel $40,704 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Equipment 
Personal Computers 

(3 at approximately $2,862) 
Computer Network Equipment 

for three new computers 

Total Equipment 

Materials and Supplies 
Office Supplies 
Photocopying 

Total Materials and Supplies 

Staff Travel 

Indirect Costs (20 percent of salaries, 
excluding fringe benefits) 

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 

None. 



$8,585 
3.122 



300 
200 



$11,707 

500 
275 

6.461 

$59,647 



$6,461, based on 20 percent of salary costs, excluding fringe 
benefits 

1. The original grant previously provided by the CDC for the 
AIDS Surveillance Project totalled $1,986,112. The proposed 
supplemental grant of $59,647 represents a three percent 
supplement to the previous grant. According to Mr. Tim 
Piland of the AIDS Office, these additional funds are being 
offered because additional funds were available for 
supplemental grants in CDC's current fiscal year budget. 

2. The AIDS Surveillance Project has been in operation since 
fiscal year 1990-91, and has been entirely funded by the 
Centers for Disease Control since its inception. 

3. The DPH advises that if the proposed grant were reduced 
or terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 2.3 FTEs for a 
period of four months. 

4. The proposed grant includes indirect costs in the amount 
of $6,461, based on 20 percent of salary costs, excluding fringe 
benefits. 

5. The Department has completed a Disability Access 
Checklist, which is in the file. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 



6. A Summary of Grant Request form, as completed by the 
Department, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Hpnlth Cornmi5<:»op - Snmmnrv of Grant Regu^t 
^ep^of Healch and Human Srvs 

C enters for Disease Control 

Jeff Erird 



Rev. </)0/90 I 



^r.tact Person 

ddreSS CDC/PGO 255 East Paces Ferry Ro ad 

Atlanta, GA 30305 

59,647 



Division - 

Section 

Contact Person 
Telephone 



CO/AIDS Div 



ATPS Office 



Tim Piland 



554-9132 



3? 



Amount Requested S 
Term: From 9/1/92 

Health Commission 8/1 1/92 



To .12/31 /9 ?, 



Application Deadline . 
Notification Expected 



7/31/92 



8/31/92 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Doard 



T. Item Description: 



Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (ne^^0QQHHQsnBH)<^U{5CEtiBK) (augmentation to a) 

erar.t in the a.T.cur.1 of S 59,64 7 from the period of 9/1/92 to 12/31/92 

to provide supplemental funding for AIDS Surveillance Project servi'-s 



11, Summary: <. c . rr-rw ^r^rr-- 

This is additional funding for the 1992 AIDS surveillance grant to support the de sign , 
implementation, and maintainance of acrive surveillance programs for adult and ped iatric 
AIDS cases and HIV infection; specifically, these funds will be used to conduct ac tive lab 
surveillance for CD4 counts and to match the AIDS case registry against other data bases 
maintained by research groups, hospitals, and tumor registries. 

ITT. Outcomes/Qhie crivey: 

The objective of the AIDS surveillance and seroprevalence activites is to generate 
meaningful epidemiologic data about the nature of the epidemic inorder to identify 
and address issues of AIDS and HIV infection. 



T v . F.fffct': of Rrdtirtjnn or T^r^inntin" of T n e<r Fund*- 

Failure to utilize this supplemental funding will impair our ability to measure and track 
the AIDS epidemic in San Francisoc and possibly jeopardize future federal funding. 

V. Financial Information: 



Col. 



Gr2nt Amount 
P ersonnel 
Equipment 
Contract Svc. 
Mat. & Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 

VT. Data Prore* 

V!?. Personal 
F/T CSC 

prr esc 

Contractual 



cm. r 

?:s; Ycar/OKj. 

1,962,465 

1,352,923 

6,473 

156,529 

102,126 

35,986 

93,678 

214,750 



6,473 



27.40 



6.75 



Col. C 

Proposed 

1,986,112 

1,393,627 

18,180 

156,529 

102,426 

35,986 

94,152 

221,211 



29.70 + 



6.75 + 



Col. 



+ 


59,647 


+ 


40,704 


+ 


11,707 





+ 


300 





+ 


475 


+ 


6,461 


+ 


11,707 


+ 


2.30 




+ 



Reo. >^2:ch, 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
Positi ons not fully funded with these supplemental funds are paid for from other 
CDC grant funds. 



Will grant funded employees be re:ni D ed z'.-.tr this gram terminates? If so, Hoi 
No. 



V H.L Crmirncii^l Srrvir-.c; Open Bid none. 



Sole Source 



31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 

Item lh - File 146-92-63 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Public Health 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Community Public Health Service, Epidemiology and Disease 
Control Division, Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) 
Control Division, to accept and expend an augmentation 
grant of $321,540, which includes indirect costs of $34,072, 
based on twenty percent of personnel salaries, from the 
Centers for Disease Control for the provision of STD services. 

$321,540 



Grant Period: January 1, 1993 to April 30, 1993 

Source of Funds: Centers for Disease Control 



Project: 

Number of 
Persons Served: 

Description: 



Project Budget 



Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Control Project 



The population of San Francisco 

The proposed resolution would approve a four-month 
supplemental grant of $321,540 to support an on-going STD 
Control Project. The STD Control Project includes 
surveillance, education, investigation and treatment of STDs. 
The proposed four-month supplemental funds would include 
the following priority STD Control activities: 

1. STD treatment, counseling, interviewing and partner 
notification; 

2. STD surveillance and screening; 

3. Epidemiology and disease trend analysis; 

4. HrV risk assessment, pre-test counseling and referral. 

Personnel 



Disease Control Investigators 






(8.0 FTE for 4 months) 


$88,000 




Clerk Typists 






(5.0 for 4 months) 


50,483 




Epidemiologist 






(1.0 for 4 months) 


20,088 




Computer Systems Manager 






(1.0 for 4 months) 


11.788 




Personnel Subtotal 




$170,359 


Fringe Benefits at 26 percent 




44.293 


Total Personnel 







$214,652 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGE! 1 ANALYST 1 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Materials and Supplies 






Laboratory Supplies 


$33,655 




Safer Sex Packets 


9,800 




Pamphlets, posters, and video tapes 


2,179 




Office Supplies 


1,900 




Computer lines 


340 




FAX 


1,850 




Secured Parking 


800 




Radio Pagers ($20/month x 4 months 






x 5 pagers) 


400 




Photocopying 


1,000 




Postage 


1,400 




Telephone 


3,000 




Equipment Repair 


1,000 




Translations for the hearing impaired 


350 




Total Materials and Supplies 




$57,674 


Staff Travel 




6,142 


Staff Training 




1,000 


Contractual Services 




8,000 


Indirect Costs (20 percent of salaries, not 






including fringe benefits) 




34.072 


TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 




$321,540 



None. 

$34,072, based on 20 percent of salary costs, not including 
fringe benefits 

1. The proposed grant of $321,540 over four months, or an 
average of $80,385 per month, represents no change over the 
previous grant of $964,620 over 12 months, or an average of 
$80,385 per month. According to Dr. Gail Bolen of the DPH, 
the Centers for Disease Control has provided funding for an 
STD Control Project for over 40 years. 

2. Dr. Bolen advises that the Centers for Disease Control have 
awarded a four-month supplemental grant, instead of a full- 
year extension, because the funder is reformatting the 
program announcement (that is, the grant application). The 
new program announcement will require substantial 
changes to the DPH's application, such as changes in 
personnel, Dr. Bolen reports. To allow applicants sufficient 
time to prepare newly formatted applications, the CDC has 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 



automatically extended all on-going grants for a period of 
four months, according to Dr. Bolen. 

3. Global Health Care Incorporated, a non-profit 
organization, would provide programming and computer 
consultant services related to finalizing development of a 
scannable medical record and bar coding system, and for 
general computer consultation. The proposed contract would 
be an extension of an existing contract. Global Health Care 
Incorporated was originally selected based on a competitive 
bid. 

4. The DPH advises that if the proposed grant were reduced 
or terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant would support 15 FTEs over 
four months. 

5. The proposed grant includes indirect costs in the amount 
of $34,072, based on 20 percent of salary costs, not including 
fringe benefits. 

6. The Department has completed a Disability Access 
Checklist, which is in the file. 

7. A Summary of Grant Request form, as completed by the 
Department, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



ffprs for Disease Control 

Linda Long 

F55 East Paces Ferry Road, N.E. 
' Atlanta, Ga. 30305 

Requested S 321,540 

From 1/1/93 



CPHS/EpirlPTniol pv f, Dispose Control 
STD Control 



Division 

Section 

Contact Person Wendy Wolf 

Telephone 



864-8100 



To 4/30/93 



Application Deadline . 
Notification Expected 



faith Commission 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Board 



T. Item Description: Request to QiKp<DjDft£# (accept and expend) a («5»$XjQ»KifiMlii^XXttK21i5uXl (augmentation to a) 
(cm. wop** «<•*> g-ant m me amount of S 321.540 from the period of 1 / 1/9.3 to 4/30/93 

to provide cpvuallv rrangmi rfprl di<;pa<;p (STn) rnnrrol Services. 

T T S PTT>m arVT ( CoEcaB ftsfanr; -xci. fcdj^cjaod; owzbcr ■* g^r^M >cr*^i; jcrvim icd probacy* ) 

Due to substantial changes due to be made to the 1993 STD Control Project Program 
Announcement, the 1992 award is being extended by 4 months. Funds are being awarded 

to augment the 1992 STD ControlProject award to provide for the continuation of 

surveillance, education, investigation and treatment of STDs , with an emphasis on 
svphilis. congential syphilis, chancroid, chlamydia and HIV counseling, referral and 



ITT. Outcomes/Objectives: 
- Reduce the overall incidence of STD 



partner notification. 



- Decrease the number of repeat STD visits(more than 1 visit in 12 months) by 10% 

- Establish and maintain active surveillance systems for all STDs 



TV. Effect* of Reduction or Termination of The?? Fonder 

Without funding, STD services would have to be curtailed, and we would be unable to 
effectively monitor and respond to disease outbreaks. 



V. Financial Information: 



Grant Amount 


Col. A 
Two Yean Ago 

$1,103,700 

Rin.Ris 

3nn 

?5.nr>o 

160.785 




Col. B 

Pasl Ycar/Orig. 

S964.620 

696.87? 

300 

75.000 

90.800 




Augmentation 
Col. C 

Proposed 

S321.540 
214.652 



Col. D 

Change 


Personnel 




Equipment 




Contract Svc. 


8.000 
47.534 





Mat. & Supp. 




Facilities/Space 




Other 


106.800 
* waived 
idirect costs 

5 iny 

?s nnn 

18 


41.033 17,282 

110.615 34.072 
waived/ Indirect costs 

57.36A 19.788 
16 16 








*1 19,800 in i 
VT. Data Proce* 


computed b< 


VTT. Personnel 
F/T CSC 




P/T CSC 




2 


1 


1 




Contractual 













Reo. Match Approved hv 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
N/A 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, Howl 
No 



* V IIT , Contrac tual Service*: Open Bid Sole Source ( if .»e ««.-«. u^iR«cac«fofEi«o. P uoaForr 

As part of the Community Public Health Services Department all of our contractual 
services are performed through the MIS Departments contract with Global Health Care 
Services Inc. This contract was originally bid out and is now a sole source. 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 



Item li - File 146-92-64 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 

Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 

Number of 
Persons Served: 

Description; 



Project Budget 
Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 



Public Health 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuing allocation of 
$3,000,000 from the California Department of Health Services, 
to continue funding the AIDS Drug Program; waiving 
indirect costs. 

$3,000,000 

October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 

California Department of Health Services 

AIDS Drug Program 

Up to 1,400 AIDS patients 

The proposed resolution would approve a grant of $3 million 
to provide AIDS medication to non-MediCal-eligible, low- 
income persons with a valid prescription from a licensed 
physician. The AIDS Drug Program provides AZT and 
aerosolized pentamidine, two of the most commonly used 
drugs in the treatment of AIDS. In addition, the Drug 
Program was expanded in fiscal year 1991-92 to include 
eleven new drugs used in the treatment of AIDS. 

The AIDS Drug Program is administered by the AIDS Office, 
but services are provided contractually by Professional 
Management Development Corporation. In order to increase 
accessibility to the Drug Program's clients, the AIDS Office 
plans to decentralize the Drug Program (that is, provide 
services at a number of privately operated neighborhood 
pharmacies). The Professional Management Development 
Corporation would implement this decentralization using 
other grant funds, specifically the Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) money. 
The proposed grant would be used entirely to purchase 
drugs. 

All of the proposed grant would be used to purchase drugs. 

None. 

Indirect costs are not allowed by the funder 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 26, 1992 

Comments: 1. The proposed grant of $3 million represents an increase of 

87.5 percent over the previous grant of $1.6 million. These 
additional funds would be used to expand the Program to 
include eleven additional drugs. The proposed grant would 
support the third year of an on-going program. 

2. The AIDS Office advises that the number of neighborhood 
pharmacy sites has not yet been determined. Nevertheless, 
the AIDS Office reports that the location of such sites would 
match the demographic distribution of AIDS cases in San 
Francisco. 

3. The proposed grant would not include indirect costs, since 
such costs are not allowed by the funder. 

4. The Department has completed a Disability Access 
Checklist, which is in the file. 

5. A Summary of Grant Request form, as completed by the 
Department, is attached. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



No. Henlth Commission - Summary nf Grant Request 

California Dept Health Services 

Jrantor Office of AIDS Division - CO/AIDS Div 

Contact Person Anna Ramirez Section AIDS Office 

Address P.O. Box 942732 Contact Person Tim Piland 

Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 Telephone 554-9132 

Amount Requested S 3,000,000* Application Deadline n/a 



Rev. 4/10/SO 



Term: From 10/1/92 To 9/30/93 Notification Expected n/a 

Health Commission 8/4/92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



*Contingent on available State funding. 



T. Ttem Description: Request lOjfcjpprjKioc) (accept and expend) a (roq<) (continuation.) (allocation) (aoxxoeanEEBXjrx^ 
to** .^.opruc ~*) gr2Jll ^ ^ amount of S 3.000 P 000 from the period of 10/1 /9? to 9/30/93 

to provide continuation of AIDS Drug Program s*-,'zzs 

j \ 5[tmm3r v : (Cosse»fc»ifiry;aaBd»d&rwd; tm=bc- * jr=-*--?» «wi: levieei ud prrcfezs ) 

This program continues to provide AIDS medications/drugs to non-Med iCal-eligible , l ow- 
income persons who have a valid prescription from a licensed physicia"n and who meet the 
eligibility criteria; program is administered by AIDS Office and service will be pr ovided 
contractually by Professional Management Development Corporation; contractor will i mpleme 
the planned decentralization of this program in order to increase accessibility to patron 

TTT. Outcomes/Qhie ctivts: 
These funds will continue the current Standard Agreement between the City and Count y of 
San Francisco and California Dept of Health Services for another twelve month perio d 
beginning 10/1/92. 

TV. T^fffCt* of RrdnctJO" nr Trrrnt'natinn of Thf<f Fupri«- 

Failure to accept and expend these funds would eliminate the AIDS Drug Program 

for the eligible residents of San Francisco. 



V. Financial 1/1/90 - 7/1/91 - 10/1/92 - 

6/ 3 cU 9i a 9 an 2 9 &v 9 ? cm.p s^i^ 

Two Ytirs Ago Pjsi Yeir/Orig. • Proposed Cainge 

Grant Amount ' 4.206.156 1.600,000 3,000,000 

Personnel 

Equipment 

■Contract Svc. 3.000.000 

Mat. & Sup P . 4,206,156 1,600,000 . 

Facilities/Space 

Other / 



Ap?rnv;d bv 



Indirect Costs Indir ect Costs no t a llowed by' funder. 

VT. Data Pmcr«in» 



(cc*b included it>o-0 







VTT. Prr^nrnH 

F/T CSC Q_ 

P/T CSC 



Contractual TBD 

Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
None. 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 
No. 

•VTTT. Contractual 5>rvic><: Open Bid Sole Source X u».«v.«.. U cjR»^iU-rtvo?«) 

Approved 5/19/92 by Health Commission 
38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item li - File 146-92-65 
Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project 
Description: 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Central Administration 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Central Administration, in collaboration with the State 
Department of Mental Health, as primary grantee, to accept 
and expend a two year extension grant from the Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation of $475,569 with $1,060,000 of matching 
funds from the primary grantee for a total of $1,535,569, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $133,776 
based on nine percent of personnel and office supplies, for 
the provision of a system of care for children and youth who 
are seriously emotionally disturbed and their families. 

$1,535,569 

August 1, 1992 to July 31, 1994 (two years) 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

Family Mosaic Project 

The Family Mosaic Project is a four-year effort to develop an 
interagency system of care for children and youth with 
serious emotional problems who are at risk of out-of-home 
placement or currently are in out-of-home placement. The 
interagency system would include San Francisco Unified 
School District (SFUSD), Juvenile Probation, Department off 
Social Services (DSS) and Department of Mental Health 
(DMH). The DPH previously received a grant of $1,620,000 for 
the Family Mosaic Project in 1990 (File 146-90-62; Resolution 
No. 713-90). In March of 1992 DPH received a grant 
augmentation of $158,408 from the Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation to develop a structure to receive, disburse, and 
monitor on-going funding through MediCal for the Family 
Mosaic Project. The Project is completing the first two-year 
phase of program implementation which provided a 
preliminary analysis of services and costs. 



Required Match: None 



The entire grant would serve 650 children and their 
families, or approximately 1,950 individuals. 

$133,776, based on nine percent of salaries and office 
supplies 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

Comment: DPH reports that the proposed grant amount is less than the 

$1,535,569 as the proposed resolution currently reads. 
However, the Department has not yet provided the Budget 
Analyst with adequate details of the revised grant budget. As 
such, the Budget Analyst recommends continuing the 
proposed resolution for one week to allow the Department 
sufficient time to submit the complete details of the revised 
grant budget. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution for one week pending the 
DPH submission of complete budget details of the revised 
grant budget v 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

Item 2 - File 97-92-35 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
August 19, 1992. 

Item: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 

Code by adding Chapter 22B thereto, to assign responsibility 
to the General Manager of the Department of Electricity for 
designing and planning an improved telecommunications 
program for departments, boards, and commissions of the 
City and County. 



Description: 



An earlier version of the proposed ordinance was continued 
by the City Services Committee on July 21, 1992 to the 
August 4, 1992 City Services Committee meeting. The first 
proposed ordinance would have assigned responsibility to 
the General Manager of the Department of Electricity (DET) 
for designing, implementing and coordinating an improved 
telecommunications program, including voice 
communications transport networks; data network 
communications; messaging communications transport 
networks; enhanced information systems transport 
networks; billing services; the Mayor's Emergency 
Telephone System; alarm systems; public service 
communication systems; wireless, cellular and video 
communications, and Management Information Systems 
(MIS) for all departments. 

On August 4, 1992, the City Services Committee approved 
an Amendment to the Whole which excluded all MIS data 
processing equipment and services which are currently 
handled by the Controller's Information Systems Division 
and the MIS divisions of various City departments (see 
Comment 5). 

DET was unable to provide the City Services Committee 
with detailed information regarding the proposed City-wide 
telecommunications system, such as the costs and benefits, 
methods for transition to the new system, impacts on City 
departments and personnel, and implementation plans. 
Therefore, the City Services Committee amended the 
proposed ordinance at the August 4, 1992 meeting to 
authorize the Department of Electricity to design and plan a 
City-wide communications system, without granting the 
DET authority to implement the plan. This amended 
proposed ordinance was referred to the Finance Committee 
because the ordinance was determined to have fiscal impact 
prior to the amendments. The proposed ordinance was then 
continued from the August 19, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

The proposed ordinance, as amended by the City Services 
Committee, declares it to be City policy that City and County 
departments, boards, and commissions be provided with a 
well-planned, economical, and effective 
telecommunications system. The proposed ordinance would 
further require the Department of Electricity (DET) to plan 
and design an improved telecommunications program for 
the City, including a cost benefit analysis. 

Such a plan would spell out what the objectives of a 
centralized telecommunications program would be, how 
DET plans to achieve these objectives, and who would be 
responsible for carrying them out. The plan would also 
describe how arrangements would be made to ensure that 
the transition to centralized telecommunications 
coordination is orderly and cost-effective, and would provide 
opportunities for prior consultation with and surveying of 
various City departments to ensure that any concerns about 
the transfer of telecommunications staff and resources to 
DET have been addressed before a more comprehensive 
implementation ordinance is approved. 

The proposed ordinance defines telecommunications as 
including the following: voice communications systems; 
the transmission, communication, and transport links up 
to the demarcation point between and among systems for 
voice, messaging, data information, alarm, public safety, 
wireless, cellular, video, and the Mayor's Emergency 
Telephone System; and required support activities for these 
systems such as billing services and financial analysis. 

The proposed legislation is an Amendment to the Whole, as 
amended by the City Services Committee on August 4, 1992. 

Comments: 1. The City currently has no centralized 

telecommunications program. According to Mr. Dan 
McFarland of DET, the City would benefit from such a 
centralized system, in that costs would be reduced and 
services improved. Although the Electronic Information 
Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) has the authority 
to coordinate and implement a City-wide 
telecommunications system, according to Ms. Deborah 
Vincent-James of EIPSC, EIPSC does not have the staff 
resources necessary to implement such a system. Mr. 
McFarland suggests that the Department of Electricity is 
the most appropriate Department to coordinate such a 
system. The original proposed ordinance would have given 
EIPSC final approval of any DET proposals. Under the 
proposed amended version, no such EIPSC approval is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



necessary, since the current version authorizes no action 
on the part of DET. 

2. Mr. McFarland advises that, in order to prepare a 
specific action plan, DET must secure billing information 
on all City departments from Pacific Bell, AT&T and all 
other telecommunications vendors. Mr. McFarland reports 
that approval of the proposed legislation would give DET the 
authority to secure such information. However, the CAO 
advises that approval of the proposed ordinance would not 
be necessary to secure such billing information. 

3. In order to complete the proposed action plan, the 
proposed ordinance would authorize DET to survey all City 
departments, and develop specific plans about developing a 
City-wide telecommunications program, including 
implementation costs, and what cost savings could 
realistically be achieved. 

4. Mr. McFarland reports that benefits that would accrue 
from a centralized telecommunications system are as 
follows: 

(a) centralized telecommunications procurement contracts 
for equipment and services could result in greater price 
discounts; 

(b) one City agency will be responsible for ensuring that all 
City telephone bills are paid on time, thus eliminating 
costly late payments. DET estimates that late payments for 
City departments may currently total $5,000 to $10,000 
annually; 

(c) duplications in service would be eliminated; 

(d) existing equipment would be fully utilized; 

(e) DET could ensure that the City's telephone costs would 
be accurately billed at uniform prices; 

(f) DET would work with all major user departments to 
analyze telecommunications requirements and propose 
more efficient methods of operation, such as consolidation 
of telephone operators throughout the City. 

5. Mr. McFarland reports that DET met with 
representatives of the MIS Divisions within the San 
Francisco International Airport, the Public Utilities 
Commission (PUC), the Department of Public Health (DPH) 
and the Controller's Information Systems Division (ISD) to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A"* 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



clarify the definition of "telecommunications" in the 
proposed legislation to exclude data processing equipment 
or services that are directly managed by City MIS Divisions 
from the definition of "telecommunications." An 
Amendment to the Whole, containing these changes, was 
approved by the City Services Committee on August 4, 1992, 
as noted above. MIS systems include any 
telecommunication program that involves the transferral of 
data, Ms. Vincent James advises. The proposed ordinance 
would give DET the authority to develop the transport 
mechanisms for transferring data, but would not give DET 
authority to determine the hardware and software which is 
managed by the data centers of the above departments. 

6. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office advises that 
the Controller considers the preparation of an action plan 
prior to authorizing DET to coordinate a City-wide 
telecommunications system to be appropriate. 

7. As previously discussed, on August 4, 1992, the City 
Services Committee amended the proposed ordinance and 
recommended approval of the proposed Amendment of the 
Whole. 

8. The proposed ordinance, as amended, would have no 
fiscal impact, since it would authorize only an action plan, 
and would not authorize any implementation on the part of 
the Department of Electricity. 

9. According to Mr. Fred Weiner of the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer (CAO), an Amendment of the Whole 
will be introduced at the September 2, 1992 Finance 
Committee meeting which would authorize the DET to 
manage a City-wide telecommunications program and also 
require the DET to prepare an action plan for such a 
program. If such an Amendment of the Whole is 
introduced, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed ordinance be continued until after such an action 
plan is provided to the Board of Supervisors. Although the 
Budget Analyst agrees that coordination of a City-wide 
telecommunications program might achieve efficiencies, 
the actual effects of such a City- wide system is unknown at 
this time, including the costs and benefits, methods for 
transition to the new system, impacts on City departments 
and personnel, and implementation plans. 

Mr. Weiner advises that the CAO would disagree with the 
Budget Analyst's recommendation to continue the proposed 
Amendment of the Whole until an action plan is provided to 
the Board of Supervisors. According to Mr. Weiner, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

CAO believes that efficiencies can be achieved in the 
current telecommunications program and that the DET is 
the most appropriate department from a technical 
perspective to manage the City's telecommunications 
program. Mr. Weiner states that unless the Board of 
Supervisors believes that the DET is not the appropriate 
department to be responsible for a City-wide 
telecommunications program, there is no reason to 
continue the proposed ordinance, according to the CAO. 
This response of the CAO's Office is not to the point of the 
Budget Analyst's recommendation, which is that the costs 
and benefits, as well as other impacts, of the proposed 
reorganization should be provided to the Board of 
Supervisors prior to approval of such a reorganization. 

Recommendations: (1) Since no specific plan has been provided, including costs 
and benefits and other impacts, approve the proposed 
ordinance, as amended by the City Services Committee. 
This proposed ordinance would authorize an action plan 
only and would not authorize any implementation on the 
part of the Department of Electricity until the details of the 
costs and benefits and other impacts are provided to the 
Board of Supervisors. 

(2) If an Amendment to the Whole is introduced, which 
would authorize management and/or implementation of a 
City-wide telecommunications program, continue the 
proposed ordinance, pending provision by DET to the Board 
of Supervisors of an action plan, including costs, benefits 
and other impacts. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-5 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
August 26, 1992. 

This is a hearing to consider the impact of State budget cuts on the revenues 
of the City and County of San Francisco. 

As of the writing of this report, a budget resolution has been adopted by the 
State Senate and Assembly but remains unsigned by the Governor. Critical 
legislation is now being considered to enact the changes contemplated by the 
budget bills. 

As directed by the Finance Committee, the Budget Analyst is working with 
the Mayor's Budget staff and the Controller's Office to provide an estimate of the 
impact of the State budget and to suggest a schedule for City and County 
budgetary actions that will be necessitated by the approved State budget and 
changes in local revenues that have been identified by the Controller. 



ROARD OF RITPFRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item 4 - File 291-92-1 

This is a hearing to consider all special funds administered by the Controller. 

This item was placed on calendar in order to review a report now being 
prepared by the Controller concerning special funds. As of the writing of this 
memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, the Budget Analyst has been informed 
that the report of the Controller will be issued prior to the September 2, 1992 
meeting for consideration by the Finance Committee. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 2, 1992, Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 172-92-10 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 

Source of Funds: 

Contract Period: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Juvenile Probation 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Chief Probation 
Officer of the Juvenile Probation Department to renew a 
contract with California Youth Authority for diagnostic 
treatment services and temporary detention not to exceed 
ninety days; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 

$3,480 per month per juvenile, or 1/30 of that amount 
(approximately $116) per day per juvenile for stays not to 
exceed 90 days. 

General Fund, included in Juvenile Probation's FY 1992-93 
budget. 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 (See Comment 1) 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the renewal of a 
contract with the California Youth Authority (CYA), located 
in Sacramento, for diagnostic, treatment and temporary 
detention services. CYA provides assistance to Juvenile 
Court Judges in determining the appropriate disposition of 
cases. 

Any Juvenile Court Judge may request that a youth receive 
an evaluation at CYA prior to determining the appropriate 
disposition of that youth's case. A youth receiving such 
diagnostic, treatment and temporary detention services 
would be housed at CYA for a period not to exceed 90 days. 
When the CYA evaluation had been completed, the youth 
would return to the Juvenile Probation Department. The 
Presiding Judge would then review the CYA evaluation and 
determine the appropriate disposition of the case. 

1. As noted above, the contract period for the proposed 
contract is July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution provides for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

2. The Juvenile Probation Department has contracted with 
CYA for diagnostic, treatment and temporary detention 
services since July 1, 1984, according to Ms. Nelba Chavez of 
the Juvenile Probation Department. The proposed contract 
would be the eighth year of an on-going contract. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 2, 1992, Finance Committee Meeting 



3. The per placement cost of diagnosis and treatment at CYA 
facilities is a standard rate established by the State for all 
Juvenile Courts in California. The City does not have an 
opportunity to negotiate with the State regarding the rates 
charged. The State has decreased the rate per juvenile per 
day for CYA facilities by approximately 3 percent, from $120 
in FY 1991-92 to $116 in FY 1992-93. 

4. The amount spent on this contract depends on the number 
of juveniles and the duration of each juvenile's stay at the 
CYA facility. Ms. Chavez reports that the Juvenile Probation 
Department has no control over the number of juveniles 
which the Courts order to the CYA facilities. Mr. Matt Castro 
of the Juvenile Probation Department reports that the 
Department's actual expenditures for CYA services for FY 
1991-92 were $98,583 (822 days at approximately $120 per 
day, or $3,611 per month). Mr. Castro indicates that the 
Department has included $100,000 (approximately 862 days 
at $116 per day, or $3,480 per month) in its FY 1992-93 
budget for CYA services. The City's Juvenile Hall rate is $119 
per day. Based upon actual expenditures for CYA services 
during FY 1991-92, the Department does not anticipate 
expending more than the $100,000 which is included in its 
FY 1992-93 budget. 

5. Ms. Chavez advises that if a Juvenile Court Judge requests 
an evaluation by CYA, the City is obligated to provide such 
an evaluation. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item 6 -File 82-92-7 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution accepting a deed from Nihonmachi Parking 
Corporation to a sewer easement in Assessor's Block 686; 
and adopting a finding pursuant to City Planning Code 
Section 101.1. 

Nihonmachi Community Development Corporation is 
constructing a parking lot on an undeveloped property near 
the intersection of Laguna and Hemlock Streets, 
approximately one block north of the Japanese Cultural and 
Trade Center in Japantown. Development of the property 
requires that a sewer line be constructed under the parking 
lot. According to the Department of Public Works, there are 
no private sewer lines in San Francisco, and the sewer must 
be deeded to the City. Nihonmachi Community 
Development Corporation will assume the cost of 
constructing the sewer. The Department of Public Works 
would maintain the sewer. 

The proposed resolution would authorize acceptance of an 
easement deed from Nihonmachi Parking Corporation for a 
sewer across a portion of the property, including the sewer 
improvements which will be constructed. The easement 
would be approximately 15 feet wide and 100 feet in length. 

The proposed resolution would also adopt the findings of 
the City Planning Commission that the acceptance of the 
sewer easement is consistent with San Francisco's eight 
priority policies under Planning Code Section 101.1. 

1. Mr. Nat Lee of the Department of Public Works states 
that there would be no cost to the City for construction of 
the sewer or in exchange for the sewer easement. Costs to 
the City would be limited to maintaining the sewer after it 
is constructed, according to Mr. Lee. Mr. Henry Anderson 
of the Department of Public Works states that the 
estimated annual maintenance cost of a sewer this size 
would be approximately $70, and the useful life of the sewer 
would be approximately 80 years. 

2. The Department of City Planning reports that acceptance 
of the sewer easement is exempt from environmental 
review. 



BOARD OF SirPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SO 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



3. The eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 
concern the impact of a project on the City's retail 
businesses, housing stock, affordable housing, traffic and 
parking, business opportunities, earthquake preparedness, 
historic buildings, and open space. By approving the 
proposed resolution, the Board of Supervisors would adopt 
the Planning Commission's finding that acceptance of the 
sewer easement would have no adverse impacts in these 
areas. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Items 7.8 and 9- Files 74-92-1. 74-92-2 and 74-92-3 

1. The proposed ordinances would establish the 1992-93 property tax rates 
for the City and County of San Francisco (File 74-92-1), for the San Francisco 
Unified School District (File 74-92-2) and for the San Francisco Community 
College District (File 74-92-3). The rate proposed for the City's general tax rate of 
$1.00 per $100 of assessed valuation is the maximum allowable rate. The total tax 
rate of $1.15, as calculated by the Controller, includes bond interest and 
redemption charges. The new rate is $.029 more than the 1991-92 tax rate of 
$1,121, as shown below. The Controller's Office reports that the increase is due to 
an increase of $11.1 million for a variety of General Obligation bonds issued 
during 1991-92 and consequent increased General City debt service requirements. 



Actual 

1991-92 

Rate 



Proposed 

1992-93 

Rate 



General Tax Rates 



Increase 
(Decrease) 



City and County of San 








Francisco: 








General Fund 


$0.87418319 


$0.86168319 


($0.0125) 


Children's Fund 





0.0125 


0.0125 


Open Space Acquisition Fund 


0.025 


0.025 


- 


County Superintendent of 


0.00097335 


0.00097335 


- 


Schools 








S.F. Unified School District 


0.07698857 


0.07698857 


- 


S.F. Community College 


0.01444422 


0.01444422 


- 


District 








Bay Area Air Quality 


0.00208539 


0.00208539 


- 


Management District 








Bay Area Rapid Transit District 


0.00632528 


0.00632528 


- 


Subtotal, General Tax Rates 


$1.00 


$1.00 


$0.00 


Rates for Bonded Indebtedness 








City and County of San 


$0.0917407 


$0.12002249 


$0.02828179 


Francisco 








S.F. Unified School District 


0.0041593 


0.00417751 


0.00001821 


Bay Area Rapid Transit District 


0.0251 


0.0258 


0.0007 


Subtotal, for Bonded 


0.121 


0,150 


0,029 


Indebtedness 








Total Combined Tax Rate 


$1,121 


$1,150 


$0,029 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



2. As compared with the current 1991-92 $1,121 tax rate, the 1992-93 
proposed $1.15 tax rate will have the following effect on a tax bill for a $300,000 
residence: 



1991-92 


Value 
$294,118 


Pro 


pertv Tax 


Assessed Value (1990-91) 






Add Annual 2% Increase 


5.882 






Subtotal 


$300,000 






Less Homeowners Exemption 


7.000 






Total 


$293,000 


* $100 x $1,121 


$3,284.53 


1992-93 








Assessed Value (1991-92) 


$300,000 






Add Annual 2% Increase 


6.000 






Subtotal 


$306,000 






Less Homeowners Exemption 


7.000 






Total 


$299,000 


-s- $100 x $1.15 


$3,438.50 



Net Increase in Property Tax Bill $153.97 

T?Af*>mmendation 

Approve the proposed ordinances. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Item 10 - File 101-92-2.2 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend the previously approved 1992-93 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance (File 101-92-2; Ordinance No. 249-92), giving 
effect to revenue changes pursuant to Charter Section 6.208 and adjusting 
appropriations to meet the requirements of the Arts Commission pursuant to 
Charter Section 6.400 (a)(2)(E), and the Airport (pursuant to Airport Commission 
Resolution No. 92-0211), as a pre-requisite to levy a tax pursuant to Charter 
Section 6.208. The proposed ordinance would make various revenue and 
expenditure adjustments to the 1992-93 City budget as follows: 

- Adjust estimated revenues, reserves and surplus to the most current 
information available; 

- Appropriate additional funds in the amount of $23,492 to the Arts 
Commission for the Municipal Symphony Orchestra (one-eighth cent 
per $100 of assessed valuation) as required by Charter Sections 6.400 
(aX2)(E) and 6.414; 

- Reduce Airport landing fee revenue by $6.5 million to conform to Airport 
Commission Resolution No. 92-0211, adopted by the Airport Commission 
on July 21, 1992, that sets forth a new schedule for airline terminal 
rates. 

Increase the General Fund General Reserve by $1,174,534 through 
reductions to the Salary Standardization Reserve requirements for 
employee dental benefits. 

2. The proposed budget changes would result in the following adjustments 
to the General Fund General Reserve: 

General Fund General Reserve 

Balance as Previously Approved by the Board of Supervisors in 

the Annual Appropriation Ordinance $5,600,000 

Add: Excess Salary Standardization Reserve Appropriation 1,174,534 

Less: Increased Appropriation 

Art Commission - Municipal Symphony Orchestra (23.492) 

General Fund - General Reserve Balance $6,751,042 



BOARD OF SUPKRV1SORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



3. In addition to the General Fund General Reserve balance of $6,751,042, 
the City has the following major General Fund Reserves totaling $35,877,990. 



Major General Fund Reserves 

Emergency Reserve Fund $4,498,046 

Dental Benefit Reserve 10,961,308 

Police Academy Class Reserve 350,000 

Public Library - Jails 35,000 

Police - Senior Escort 350,000 

Public Library - Sunday Service 215,000 

Audit Adjustment 4,500,000 

AIDS Programs 1,000,000 

Commission on the Status of Women Reserve 50,000 

Aids Prevention Group Meeting 60,000 

Collective Bargaining Fringe 400,000 

Sheriff - Alternative Treatment 399,675 

DPH - Disability Access Compliance 75,000 

Childrens' Zoo Admission 186,000 

Swimming Pool Hours Restoration 100,000 

COA - Recreational Therapy 57,847 

Reserve for Litigation 11,240,114 

SFGH Capital Reserve 1,400.000 

Subtotal $35,877,990 

General Fund - General Reserve as shown above 6,751,042 

Total General Fund Reserves $42.629.032 



* The Reserve for Litigation includes the Board of Supervisors approved 
1992-93 reserve of $6,550,000 and carry forward funds from 1991-92 in the 
amount of $4 ,690, 114. 

4. The proposed ordinance also provides that special fund 1991-92 fiscal 
year end surpluses are to be added to fund balances for the respective special 
funds. No amendments to 1992-93 expenditure appropriations have been 
submitted for the special funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 2, 1992 



Comment 



Normally, this proposed ordinance, placing into effect final amendments to 
the Annual Appropriation Ordinance, would include property tax revenue 
adjustments based on finalization of the assessment rolls. However, as reported 
by the Controller at the Finance Committee meeting of August 26, 1992, the 
current 1992-93 adjustment to property tax revenues and to various other revenues 
will be made as part of the budgetary adjustments that must be made as a result 
of final adoption of the State Budget (see item 3, File 100-92-5 of this report to the 
Finance Committee). 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 




[arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 6 



; n nnrUMFNTS DEPT. PUBLIC LIBRARY (2) 

f„L UU^u DOCUMENTS DIVISION 

AAan SEP IT l99<d \\W . ^ -r-z, , CIVIC CENTER 

1 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 27-92-8 . [Airport Financing Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution 
authorizing Airports Commission to file application and accept and expend 
grant of $11,885,183 from Federal Aviation Administration for assistance in 
improvement at the Airport (A.I. P. No. 14). (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing Airports Commission to file application and 
accept and expend grant of $11,885,183 from Federal Aviation 
Administration for assistance in improvement at the Airport (A.I. P. 
No. 14); placing $10,399,433 on reserve." 

(b) File 27-92-9 . [Hold Harmless Agreement] Resolution authorizing the Airports 
Commission to enter into hold harmless agreements with Oliver de Silva, Inc., 
for completion of work in contaminated areas. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(c) File 134-92-2 . [Presidio Planning - Department] Resolution authorizing the 
Director of Planning to apply for, accept and expend funds from the National 
Park Service totalling $160,053 for a period of thirteen months for Presidio 
planning, including ten percent for indirect costs. (Department of City 
Planning) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Director of Planning to apply for, accept 
and expend funds from the National Park Service not to exceed 
$160,054 for a period of thirteen months for Presidio planning, 
including ten percent for indirect costs; and ratifying actions 
previously taken." 

(d) File 148-92-6 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing Director of 
Public Works to execute the necessary documents to apply for, accept and 
expend up to $1, 000,000 in Federal funds for curb ramp construction. 
(Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing Director of Public Works to execute the 
necessary documents to apply for, accept and expend up to 
$1,000,000 in Federal funds for curb ramp construction; placing 
$904,382 on reserve." 

(e) File 148-92-7 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing Director of Public 
Works, Bureau of Architecture, to accept and expend four hazard mitigation 
grants of $1,862,000, $1,400,000, $500,000 and $1,209,500 from the California 
State Office of Emergency Services in behalf of Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA); waiving indirect costs. (Department of Public 
Works) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing Department of Public Works, Bureau of 
Architecture, to accept and expend four hazard mitigation grants 
of $1,862,000, $1,400,000, up to $500,000 and $1,209,500 from the 
California State Office of Emergency Services in behalf of Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); waiving indirect costs; 
placing $4,798,964 on reserve." 

(f) File 192-92-6 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Executive 
Director of the Department of Parking and Traffic to accept and expend a 
grant in the amount of $263,000 of Proposition 116 funds for the Commuter 
Bikeway Improvement Program, foregoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 
(Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(g) File 100-92-1.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Redevelopment Agency, in the amount of $3,450,000, for an economic 
development strategic plan and/or economic development implementation 
plan. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: Release of $2,450,000 recommended. Filed. 



(h) File 68-92-10 . [Lead Based Paint Abatement Grant Program] Resolution 

authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, 
accept, and expend a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development for a total amount not to exceed six million dollars ($6,000,000) 
for a program authorized under the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1992, Public Law Number 102-139. $600,000 of indirect costs associated 
with the acceptance of these grant funds is included in the application budget. 
(Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
"title: "Authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of San 
Francisco to apply for a grant for lead-based paint abatement from 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a total 
amount not to exceed six million dollars ($6,000,000) for a program 
authorized under the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1992, Public Law Number 102-139; $600,000 of indirect costs 
associated wnh the acceptance of these grant funds is included in 
the application budget." 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 127-92-7 . [Hotel Tax Exemption] Ordinance amending Part III of the Municipal 
Code by amending Section 506 to exempt certain hotels from the Hotel Tax. 
(Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Continued to the Call of the Chair. 



File 146-92-65 . [Grant - Private and State Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, as subgrantee, in collaboration with the State 
Department of Mental Health, Children, Youth and Families Branch, as primary 
grantee, to accept and expend a two year extension grant from the Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation of $475,569 with $1,060,000 of matching funds from the primary 
grantee for a total of $1,535,569, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$133,776 based on nine percent of salaries and other allowable costs, from the 
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and indirect costs of ten percent from the State 
Department of Mental Health for the provision of a system of care for children and 
youth who are seriously emotionally disturbed and their families; companion measure 
to File 146-92-17. (Department of Public Health) 
(Cont'd from 9/2/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Department of Public Health, as subgrantee, in 
collaboration with the State Department of Mental Health, Children, 
Youth and Families Branch, as primary grantee, to accept and expend, 
retroactively, a two-year extension grant from the Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation of $475,569 with $1,050,000 of matching funds from the 
primary grantee for a total of $1,525,569, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $56,749 based on nine percent of salaries and other 
allowable costs, from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and indirect 
costs of ten percent from the State Department of Mental Health for the 
provision of a system of care for children and youth who are seriously 
emotionally disturbed and their families." 



4. File 25-92-22 . [Contracting Out City Services - Police Department] Resolution 
concurring with the Controller's certification that janitorial services can be 
practically performed for San Francisco Police Department facilities by private 
contractor for lower cost than similar work, services performed by City and County 
employees. (Police Department) 

(Cont'd from 8/12/92) 

ACTION: Continued to September 16, 1992, meeting. 

5. File 173-92-2 . [Marine Terminal Agreement] Ordinance approving First Amendment 
to Marine Terminal Agreement with Evergreen Marine Corporation allowing a fifty 
percent sharing of demurrage revenue. (Port Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



6. File 161-92-4.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resubmission of the 
Redevelopment Agency Budget as approved as amended, as a condition of approval, 
to present the Agency's 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget to the Board of Supervisors, by 
September 1, 1992 for reconsideration in light of the fiscal impact to the Agency and 
City and County that may result from the final adoption of Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Budget for the State of California; companion measure to File 161-92-4. 
(Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: Continued to September 23, 1992, meeting. 

7. File 97-92-50 . [Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative Code, by adding Sections 
8.36 and 8.36-1 thereto, authorizing the Juvenile Probation Department to charge 
fees for certain services and documents. (Juvenile Probation Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



55 



CITY AND COUNTY 



BO 




Public Library, (Documents (Dept. 
WPBk QenyiRptfi 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OARD OF SUPERVISORS SEP 8 1992 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



September 4, 1992 



TO: 
FROM: 



finance Committee 
^Fdoget Analyst f\< 



get Analyst f\€Ce/*n/^fA. wtofJi 



tfaJ/ofiJ 



SUBJECT: September 9, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 27-92-8 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airports Commission to file an 
application and accept and expend a grant from Federal Aviation 
Administration for assistance in the Airport Improvement 
Program (A.I.P. No. 14). 

$11,885,183 

Annual allotment - grant funds are available for reimbursement 
upon completion of project improvements. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

Improvements at the Airport 

The San Francisco International Airport is constructed on filled 
land overlaying geologically unstable Bay mud. As a result of heavy 
use, all runways and taxiways as well as supporting systems need 
constant repair and reconstruction. The proposed grant would 
reimburse the City for 75 percent of the construction costs of certain 
improvements to the Airport under the Airport and Airway Safety 
and Capacity Extension Act of 1987. The improvements under this 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Proposed Budget: 



project would include (1) the construction and installation of 
approximately 200 lighted taxiway guidance signs (required by the 
FAA), (2) the construction and overlay of approximately 1,250 feet of 
a new Taxiway "W" extension and the maintenance of existing 
Taxi ways "N" and "P", (3) the construction of a new holding apron 
(open space at the end of runway used for aircraft holding and safe 
by-pass area) with edge lighting and striping and (4) the 
construction of approximately 8,400 feet of new dike at the water 
boundary of the southeast quadrant of the Airport. 

The estimated total cost of the above-noted improvements would be 
$15,846,911, of which 75 percent or $11,885,183 would be eligible for 
reimbursement by the FAA. 

Administration $50,000 

Architectural Engineering Basic Fees 1,000,000 

Project Inspection Fees 930,000 

Construction and Project Improvement 13,200,000 

Contingencies 666.911 

Total $15,846,911 

Federal Share @ 75 percent $11,885,183 

Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: None. All indirect services provided by the City to the Airport and 

the Commission are covered in the Annual Service Payment 
pursuant to the Lease and Use Agreement between the City and the 
major airlines using San Francisco International Airport. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Ernie Eavis of the Airport reports that the Airport had 

recently been engaged in a lawsuit with the FAA regarding 
whether or not Q-707 aircraft should be allowed to fly in and out of 
the Airport. The Airport believed that the Q-707 created too much 
noise. Mr. Eavis advises that this litigation has been settled in favor 
of the FAA. According to Mr. Eavis, it is now anticipated that all 
outstanding AIP grant monies, which were being withheld by the 
FAA pending a settlement of this litigation, will now be made 
available to the Airport. The total AIP grant monies due to the 
Airport, excluding the $11,885,183, which is the subject of this 
report, is $64,390,930, according to Mr. Eavis. 

2. Mr. Eavis advises that the Airport does not match the AIP grant 
funds per se, but is reimbursed, subject to audit, for up to 75 percent 
of the total actual cost of design, inspection and construction. Mr. 
Eavis states that the initial reimbursable construction costs, as well 
as the 25 percent Airport share, is paid from Airport revenue 
bonds. 



BOARD OF SI IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

3. According to Mr. Eavis, the Airport has not, as yet, selected 
contractors to perform the proposed construction. Of the total 
$15,846,911 project budget, $13,865,911 would be allocated to 
contractors ($13,200,000 in Construction and Project Improvement 
and $666,911 or 5 percent in Contingencies). Administration, 
Architectural Engineering Basic Fees, and Project Inspection Fees 
would be provided in-house. Therefore, $10,399,433, or 75 percent of 
$13,865,911 should be placed on reserve pending information 
regarding the contractors' cost details and the MBE/WBE status of 
the contractors. 

4. Attached is a grant summary, as prepared by the Airport, for 
this proposed grant. 

5. The Airport has prepared a Disability Access Checklist for the 
proposed grant. A copy of this checklist is in the file. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reserve $10,399,433 pending 
information on contractors' cost details and the MBE/WBE status of 
the contractors and approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPKK VISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Attachment 
Page 1 of t 



LETTER OF INTENT 
Grant Application Information Form 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 



The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 



Department : Airport 



Contact Person: Ernie Eavis Telephone: 737-7747 

Project Title: Airport Improvement Program 14 

Grant Source: Federal Aviation Administration 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 
See Attached Narrative Description 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $11.885, 183 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $11,885, 183 

Required Matching Funds : None 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: None Contemplated 
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? N/A 



Attachment 
Page 2 ot 4 



Term of Grant: Yearly Allotment 



Date Department Notified of Available Funds:. 
Application Due Date: September 1992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and options (from RFP, grant announcement 
of appropriations legislation) : 

Available grant funds for Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP) projects, in the form of a trust, are derived 
from Federal excise taxes on passenger ticket, freight 
forwarding, fuel, and tire sales as authorized by the 
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (PL-248) . 
San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) is alloted 
an annual share based upon actual passenger and freight 
totals for the year prior to the AIP application. The 
allotment is used to reimburse 75% of the actual 
design, inspection and construction cost of the 
selected airfield improvements. 

Assessment of Need for Grant Funding: The projects listed in this 
grant application are already included in the Aiports 5 year Capital 
Improvement Program. If Grant Funding is not obtained the monies 
that would have gone to SFIA will be put back into the trust fund 
and disbursed to other airports as discretionary grants. The 
projects listed in the A. I. P. #14 will still be constructed, 
however, without the Federal Funding. 



Uh~ /. 5*^1 



Department Head Approval 



fage 3 of i 



NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



The Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco is submitting 
a request for Federal financial assistance under the Airport Improvement 
Program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, for the 
projects described below at San Francisco International Airport. 

1. Project Title: Fabrication and Installation of Taxiway Guidance Signs. 

Description: 

This project provides for the fabrication and installation of 
approximately 200 new lighted taxiway guidance signs, the elimination and 
relocation of certain existing taxiway guidance signs and all appurtenant 
and necessary work on the SFO airfield in order to comply with the new FAA 
standards for airport sign systems, effective July 31, 1991. 

Purpose: 

The purpose of this project is to eliminate all unlighted taxiway guidance 
signs at SFIA and to improve visibility and safety for increased numbers 
of aircraft during all weather conditions in compliance with FAA's new 
taxiway guidance sign standards. 

2. Project Title: Construction and Repair of Taxiways @ Taxiways "W", "N", 
and "P". 

Description: 

This project provides for the construction of approximately 1100' of 
Taxiway "W" extension between Runways 28R and 28L and between Runway 28L 
and Taxiway "E". The remainder of construction and repair will be 
allocated on an "as needed" basis along approximately 2700' of Taxiways 
"N" and "P". 

Purpose: 

The purpose of this project is to provide quick, and safe access to Runway 
28L and 28R directly from Taxiway "E" for aircraft circumventing aircraft 
waiting to take off on Runways 28L and 28R and to provide on going 
maintenance for heavily used Taxiways "N" and "P" which will include 
enlarging fillets at the Taxiway and Runway intersections. 

3. Project Title: Construction of Runway 28L-10R East End Hold Apron 
Extension and Runway 10L-28R West-End Hold Apron widening. 

Description: 

This project provides for the Construction of a 2000' X 400' apron 
extension at the east end of Runways 28L and 28R together with all edge 
lighting, striping and any appurtenant and necessary work and the widening 
of the Runway 10L West-End Hold Apron with two 1000* X 200' strips 
together with the edge lights, striping, and any appurtenant and necessary 
work. 



Doc..3197t/l 



Att ach ment 
Page~T of 4 



Page 2 Narrative Project Description 



Purpose: 

The purpose of the east end apron project is to provide an aircraft 
holding apron for heavy long range aircraft waiting to take off on either 
Runway 28L or 28R as well as a safe by-pass for aircraft enroute to either 
runway in order to conserve fuel and reduce take-off delay time. The 

purpose of the west end apron widening project is to provide a safe 
roll -out area for aircraft in case of an aborted take-off. 

4. Project Title: Reconstruction of Airfield Perimeter Dike-Phase 8. 

Description: 

This project provides for the construction and the building-up of 
approximately 8,400' of dike at the water boundary of the Southeast 
quadrant of the Airport. The dike will parallel both Runways 19L-1R and 
10R-28L and will consist of impervious membrane covered with rock and 
faced with concrete. 

Purpose: 

The purpose of this project is to prevent tidal water from San Francisco 
Bay from encroaching upon and inundating Runways 19L-1R and 28L-10R. The 
area is one of constant and marked settlement which when combined with 
rain storms from the Southeast and high tides pose a constant threat of 
flooding and the potential for unsafe conditions and departure delays. 



Doc..3197t/2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item lb -File 27-92-9 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Airports Commission to enter 

into hold harmless agreements with Oliver de Silva, Inc., for 
completion of work in contaminated areas. 

Description: The Airport reports that during the performance of 

construction work to widen and relocate Taxiway "C" at the 
Airport, the contractor, Oliver de Silva, Inc., encountered soil 
contamination. In response to the soil contamination 
encountered by the contractor, the Airport retained an 
environmental consultant to characterize the extent of the 
existing soil and groundwater contamination at the project 
site. 

Based on the consultant's report, four separate areas within 
the project site were identified as being contaminated with jet 
fuel and/or gasoline. The Airport advises that in order to 
complete the project, it will be necessary for Oliver de Silva, 
Inc. to perform additional work, including remediation work 
to clean up the contaminants in the project site. The Airport 
states that a change order to perform this unanticipated work 
has been negotiated with the contractor. 

In accordance with the proposed resolution, Oliver de Silva, 
Inc. has requested that the Airport execute hold harmless 
agreements as a condition of performance of the change 
order work. The two agreements would hold Oliver de Silva, 
Inc. harmless from any liability resulting from (1) the site 
investigation performed by the environmental consultant, 
and (2) the pre-existing condition of the work site and the 
excavation, on-site transportation and storage of 
contaminated soils and groundwater, so long as such work is 
performed according to the City's directives. The agreements 
provide that the City would assume liability for damages 
which may occur as a result of Oliver de Silva Inc.'s proper 
performance of the change order work. 

Comments: 1. Under the terms of the change order, in addition to the 

insurance coverage called for in the original contract, the 
contractor will be required to procure and maintain Pollution 
Legal Liability Insurance in the amount of $5,000,000 for 
combined bodily injury and property damages. The City will 
be named an additional insured under this policy. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

2. Mr. Robert Maerz of the City Attorney's Office advises that 
the change order defines "proper performance" as "the 
contractor's performance of the change order work in strict 
accordance with the instructions, guidelines, directives, and 
training communicated to Oliver de Silva by the City and 
County and/or environmental consultant." 

3. Mr. Maerz reports that under the hold harmless 
agreements, the City would be liable for damages that 
exceeded the $5,000,000 Pollution Legal Liability coverage if 
damage resulted from the contractor's performance of work 
in accordance with City directives. Mr. Maerz advises that 
given the type of contaminate and levels of contamination it is 
not likely that a suit for damages would exceed $5,000,000. 
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the hold 
harmless agreements as to form and is of the opinion that the 
agreements adequately protect the City's interests. 

Recommendation: Based on the advice of the City Attorney's Office, the Budget 
Analyst recommends that the proposed resolution be 
approved. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Item lc - File 134-92-2 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Budget: 



City Planning Department 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Planning to apply for, 
accept, and expend funds from the National Park Service 
totalling $160,053 for a period of thirteen months for Presidio 
planning, including ten percent for indirect costs. 

$160,053 

September 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 (13 months) 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior 

Presidio Planning Grant 

The City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the National Park Service in order to coordinate 
planning activities between the City and the Federal 
government concerning future uses for the Presidio. The 
MOU provides that the National Park Service will provide 
funds in the amount of $87,342 to the Department of City 
Planning for a Presidio Planner for the duration of the 
planning process. The Presidio Planner will coordinate the 
planning activities of the City and the National Park Service 
concerning future use of the Presidio. 

The Department of City Planning is also seeking funds in the 
amount of $72,712 from the National Park Service for the cost 
of proposed City Planning Department services related to the 
preparation of the Draft and Final Documents for the 
Presidio General Management Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement. 



Presidio Planner (12 months) 

Class FTE 

Planner IV 1.0 

Fringe Benefits 

Total 1.0 

Indirect Costs (10 percent) 

Subtotal: Presidio Planner 



Amount 

$63,713 
15.689 

$79,402 

7.940 



$87,342 



BOARD OF SUPKKVISPRS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Other Work Activities (13 months) 







Billing 




Class 


Hours 


Rate 


Amount 


Planner II 


78 


$32 


$2,496 


Planner III 


603 


38 


22,914 


Planner IV 


332 


47 


15,604 


Planner V 


448 


56 


25.088 


Total 


1,461 




$66,102 



Indirect Costs (10 percent) 
Subtotal: Other Work Activities 
Total Proposed Grant Amount 
Required Match: None 



6.610 



72.712 
$160,054 



Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are allowed based on 10 percent of the total cost 

of services provided by the Department of City Planning. 
Based on costs of $145,504 ($79,402 for the Presidio Planner 
plus $66,102 for other work activities), indirect costs are 
allowed in the amount of $14,550 ($7,940 for the Presidio 
Planner and $6,610 for other work activities). 

Comments: 1. Ms. Martha Kessler of the City Planning Department 

states that the National Park Service has not yet agreed to 
reimburse the total cost of the Department's proposed 
services for the 13-month period between September 1, 1992 
and September 30, 1993. 

According to Ms. Kessler, the National Park Service has 
agreed to reimburse the cost of the Presidio Planner for the 
12-month period between October 1, 1992 and September 30, 
1993, in keeping with the provisions of the MOU. This 
position has been funded for approximately two years, 
according to Ms. Kessler, and is currently funded through 
September 30, 1992, which is the end of the Federal fiscal 
year. Total reimbursement for the Presidio Planner will be 
$79,402 for salary and benefits of the employee, plus indirect 
costs of $7,940, for total reimbursement of $87,342. 

Ms. Kessler states that the Department of City Planning has 
submitted a proposed work plan to the National Park Service 
which includes 1,461 hours of additional services by City 
Planning Department employees, other than the Presidio 
Planner, for the 13-month period between September 1, 1992 
and September 30, 1993. This component has not previously 
been funded, according to Ms. Kessler, and it is this 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



component of the proposed work plan which has not yet been 
agreed to by the National Park Service. The reimbursement, 
if approved by the National Park Service, would consist of 
$66,102 for direct services and indirect costs of $6,610, for a 
total of $72,712. 

Ms. Kessler indicates that the City Planning Department 
would perform only those services which are reimbursed by 
the National Park Service. 

2. As shown above, the City Planning Department has used 
an hourly billing rate to estimate its costs of performing 
transportation analyses and environmental impact 
evaluations in connection with the Presidio Master Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement. 

Ms. Kessler reports that the hourly rates have been derived 
based on actual costs for salaries and fringe benefits, plus 17 
percent of the hourly rate, as compensation for estimated 
hourly overhead. 

As noted above, the National Park Service would also 
contribute indirect costs, calculated at 10 percent of direct 
costs, for the Presidio Planner as well as any additional 
hourly services which are funded. 

3. The text of the proposed resolution states that an amount 
"not to exceed $160,053" is being requested. As previously 
noted (see Comment No. 1), the Department of City Planning 
is requesting $87,342 for the Presidio Planner and $72,712 for 
other work activities, for a total of $160,054. Therefore, the 
text of the proposed resolution should be amended to reflect 
that an amount "not to exceed $160,054," rather than 
$160,053, is being requested. As previously noted, the actual 
amount to be accepted and expended would depend on the 
amount finally agreed to by the National Park Service. 

The title of the proposed resolution, reflecting authorization 
to apply for, accept and expend funds "totalling $160,053," 
should also be amended to reflect an amount "not to exceed 
$160,054," consistent with the text of the resolution. 

The City Planning Department submitted the funding 
request to the National Park Service in July, 1992. Since the 
proposed resolution includes authorization to apply for funds 
which have already been requested, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to ratify actions previously taken. 



BOARD OF SIIPKKV1SOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

4. A copy of the Grant Application Information Form 
submitted by the City Planning Department is attached. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution by substituting 
the words "not to exceed $160,054" for the words, "totalling 
$160,053," and by adding the words "and ratifying actions 
previously taken" at the end of the title. 

2. Amend the text of the proposed resolution as follows: 

(a) by substituting "$160,054" for "$160,053" at page 2, line 3 
and at page 2, line 9; 

(b) by adding the words "and ratifies actions previously 
taken" at the end of line 10. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Number 



Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department: City Planning 

Contact Person: Martha fossler Telephone: ^a.c/u? 

Presidio Planning 
Project Title: 

Grant Source: LL_s nppartmpnt of the Interior 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The grant implements the Memorandum of Understanding between the City 
and County of San Francisco and the National Park Service, Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area to provide funding for a staff person to 
coordinate City activities related to planning for the future of the 
Presidio. 

In addition, the Department is proposing additional funding for Department 
work activities related to the Draft and Final Documents associated with 
the General Management Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $] 6 Q > 053 (including 10% indirect c osts) 
Maximum Funding Amount Available: Si 60 053 



~ . . , None 
Required Matching Funds: 



One 
Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



None 
Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? 



U 



<jrant Application In. jrmation Form 
Page 2 



Term of Grant 



September 1 , 1992 through September 30, 1993 



Date Department Notified of Available funds: June 30, 1992 

September 30, 1992 
Application Due Date: 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 

This is a special grant designed to provide the City and County of 
San Francisco the resources to ensure meaningful participation in the 
planning process for the future of the Presidio. 



Assessment of Need for Grant Funding: 

It is critical that City interests and concerns be represented in day-to-day 
planning efforts for the future of the Presidio. City Departments need a 
liaison person to coordinate City initiatives and responses, to staff 
committees and task forces, and to keep the Department abreast of ideas, issues, 
concerns and opportunities related to the future of the Presidio. 

In addition, in the critical 12 months ahead, the City needs its experts in 
transportation and environmental review to participate in review of the 
General Management Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. 




15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1990 



Item Id - File 148-92-6 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description; 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept, and expend up to $1,000,000 in Federal funds for 
curb ramp construction. (A curb ramp allows wheelchair 
access between a sidewalk and a pedestrian crosswalk.) 

Up to $1,000,000 

October 1992 through September 1994 (two years) 

1993 Federal Transportation Improvement Program funds 
from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) 

Surface Transportation Program (STP) 

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is a new grant 
program under the Inter modal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 which re-authorizes existing Federal 
highway and transit programs for the next six years. The 
funds for this application will be used to construct and 
reconstruct a total of 524 curb ramps at various shopping area 
district locations, as follows: 



Location 

Sacramento St. at Lyon and Walnut 

California St. at Locust, Parker and Laurel 
Sacramento St. at Laurel 

California St. at 4th, 5th and 6th 

Arguello Blvd. at Cornwall 

Clement St. at Arguello, 2nd, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th 



Clement St. at 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 26th 27th, 28th and 29th 

Clement St. at 31st, 32nd, 33rd and 34th 

Divisadero St. at Haight and Hayes 

Haight St. at Cole, Belvedere, Stanyan, Shrader, Clayton, Central 
and Ashbury 



Number of 
New or Reconstructed 
Curb Ramps 



6 
9 

14 

24 

12 

4 



22 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1990 

Number of 
New or Reconstructed 
Location Curb Ramps 

Cole St. at Parnassus 1 

Irving St. at 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th and Ulloa 12 



Judah St. at 46th 3 

Noriega St. at 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 27th 11 

Noriega St. at 31st and 33rd 4 

Taraval St. at 14th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 

26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd and 33rd 39 

West Portal Avenue at 15th 2 

Portola Drive at Terrisita 2 

Ocean Avenue at Lagunitas, Woodacre 2 

Ocean Avenue at San Fernando 2 

Ocean Avenue at Brighton, Jules, Lee, Ashton, Harold, Plymouth-North, 
Miramar, Fairfield, Keystone, Jules, Faxon, Victoria, Granada and 

Lakewood 32 

Diamond Street at Bosworth 2 

Mission Street at St. Mary's, Crescent and Highland 3 

Mission Street at Maynard, Admiral and Castle Manor 3 

Mission Street at Persia, Tingley, Geneva, Santa Rosa, Harrington, 

Edinburg, Pope, Leo, Onondaga, Russia, Ruth, Seneca, Theresa, 
Naples, Vienna, Mt. Vernon, Allison and Ocean 

Geneva Avenue at Vienna and Paris 37 

Leland Avenue at Alpha, Cora, Desmond, Peabody, Rutland and Third 16 

San Bruno Avenue at Wayland, Stilman, Felton, Silver, Thornton, Bacon 

and Burrows 18 

Third Street at Thornton, La Salle, Lane, McKinnon, Shafter, Thomas 

Underwood, Van Dyke, Newcomb and Bay View 26 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1990 

Number of 
New or Reconstructed 
Location Curb Ramps 

Cortland Avenue at Wool, Bennington, Folsom, Anderson, Andover and 

Moultrie 17 

Mission Street at 29th, Tiffany and Virginia 

Valencia Street at Tiffany/Duncan 

29th Street at Tiffany 8 

Church Street at 30th 3 

24th Street at Sanchez and Vicksburg 2 

Market Street at Valencia, Clinton Park, Noe, Octavia, Valencia, Church, 

Guerrero/Laguna, 14th and Duboce 18 

Divisadero Street at Post 

Scott Street at Post and Sutter 9 

Fillmore Street at Fulton, Eddy, Geary, O'Farrell, McAllister, Jackson, Clay, 

Bush, California, Pine, Sacramento and Sutter 
Steiner Street at Geary, Sutter and O'Farrell 
Webster Street at Sacramento, Sutter, Geary and Sacramento 
Buchanan Street at Post 47 

Van Ness Avenue at Sacramento, Pacific, Austin, Pine, Jackson, Daniel 

Burnham, Post, Fern, Hemlock, California, Clay, Washington, 

Broadway, Cedar, Bush and Sutter 
Polk Street at Vallejo, Fern, Broadway, Filbert, Geary, Union, Bonita, Sutter, 

Washington, Green, Cedar, Hemlock, Post, Frank Norris/Austin and 

Sacramento 
Larkin Street at Washington, Clay, Cedar, Fern, Bush, California, 

Sacramento, Hemlock, 
Hyde Street at California and Pine 86 

Union Street at Steiner, Laguna, Webster and Buchanan 6 

Chestnut Street at Scott 

Filmore Street at Pixley, Mallorca, Filbert and Moulton 

Lombard Street at Steiner and Filmore 13 

San Jose Avenue at Santa Rosa 2 

Leland Street at Delta _3_ 

Total 524 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1990 

Project Budget 



DPW and Related City Costs 

Engineering and Construction 

Management 
Indirect Cost 

Subtotal 

Contractual Services 

Construction Contracts 
Construction Contingencies (10%) 
Subtotal 



Federal 
Funds 



Local 
Match 



Total 
Project 



Total 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



$95,601 



$95,601 


$12,423 

56.400 

$68,823 


$108,024 

56.400 
$164,424 


$822,165 

82.217 

$904,382 


$106,835 

10.684 

$117,519 


$929,000 

92.901 

$1,021,901 


$999,983 


$186,342 


$1,186,325 



$186,342, includes either or both State Traffic Systems 
Management (TSM) funds and local sales tax. 



$56,400. Not eligible for Federal grant funding, 
will be paid from local match. 



Indirect costs 



1. DPW has submitted the attached Grant Application 
Information Form which summarizes the proposed grant 
request. 

2. The selections of the proposed 524 curb ramp constructions 
and reconstructions are based on DPW's program to target 
shopping areas, schools, hospitals, public facilities and 
recreation areas throughout the City for curb ramp 
construction and reconstruction. The departmental program 
estimates that to complete curb ramp constructions and 
reconstructions for the entire City would cost approximately 
$10 million. 



3. Federal funding will cover 
which is computed as follows: 

Total Project Cost 
Less Indirect Costs 

Subtotal 
Federal Eligibility Percent 

Total Federal Funds 



i.5 percent of eligible costs 



$1,186,325 

56.400 

1,129,925 

x .885 



$999,983 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1990 

4. Ms. Karen Gelman of DPW's Bureau of Construction 
Management advises that the San Francisco County 
Transportation Authority has already appropriated $600,000 in 
local sales taxes and $200,000 in Transit Development Act 
(TDA) Article 3 funds for the construction of curb ramps. If 
State Traffic Systems Management (TSM) funds, a component 
of Proposition 111 Gas Tax Funds, are not available, in whole 
or in part, to fulfill the local match for the subject grant 
application, up to $186,324 of the $600,000 in local sales tax 
funds will be substituted to make up the difference. 

5. Ms. Gelman also advises that Requests for Proposals (RFP) 
have not been initiated for contractual services totaling 
$1,021,901. Under these circumstances, a total of $904,382 in 
Federal funds should be reserved pending identification of the 
contractors, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors and 
the contractors' cost details. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to reserve $904,382 for 
contractual services as identified in Comment 5 above, pending 
identification of the contractors, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of 
the contractors and the contractors' cost details, and approve 
the proposed resolution as amended. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Attachment 
File Number _ - __________ _____________^-________ 

Grant Application Information Form 

a document required to accompany a proposed resolution" 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department: PUBLIC WORKS 

Contact Person: Karen Gelman Telephone: 554-8235 

Project Title: Curb Ramp Construction 

Grant Source: Surface Transportation Program (STP) 

Proposed (New / continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is a new grant program under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 which authorizes 
federal highway and transit programs for the next six years. This grant 
request is' for curb ramp construction at various locations throughout the 
City and County of San Francisco. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $1,000,000 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $1,000,000 



Required Matching Funds: $186,342 



Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $904,382 
will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? Yes 



21 



Attachment 



Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Term of Grant: Through federal fiscal year 93-94 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: July 1992 
Application Due Date: September 23. 199-2 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding guidelines, as administered by 
California Department of Transportation CCaltrans). 



Department Head Approval 



22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 12, 1992 

Item le - File 148-92-7 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amounts: 



Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description 



Department of Public Works (DPW), Bureau of Architecture 
Department of Public Health (DPH): 

Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 
Fire Department 

Resolution authorizing DPW to accept and expend four new 
Federal Hazard Mitigation grants and waiving indirect 
costs. 

Laguna Honda Hospital-Boiler Plant $1,862,000 

San Francisco General Hospital-Service Bldg. 1,400,000 

Fire Department: 

Emergency Generators 500,000 

Station Renovations 1.209.500 

Total $4,971,500 

Beginning 60 days from acceptance of the grant and ending 
36 months from acceptance of the grant, or a 34 month 
period. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through 
the California State Office of Emergency Services 

Emergency Generator Relocation 

In October, 1990, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to apply for Hazard 
Mitigation Grant funding from the FEMA for City projects to 
mitigate against future hazards due to earthquakes (File 133- 
90-2). The CAO submitted an application for various projects 
totalling $17,739,789 which included the four projects that are 
the subject of the proposed legislation. 

LHH Boiler Plant 

The LHH Boiler Plant was built in 1926 and does not meet 
current seismic standards. The proposed hazard mitigation 
retrofitting of this building would include bracing and 
anchoring of utility pipes for steam, gas, water and 
electricity, the bracing and anchoring of two 150,000 gallon 
water tanks located on the hill above the hospital, 
construction of a second, emergency alternate water supply 
line from the tanks to the hospital buildings and anchoring of 
main utility pipes between hospital buildings. These 
improvements will assure the ability of the LHH to continue 
to provide services after a major earthquake. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 12, 1992 



Project Budget 



SFGH Service Building 

The SFGH Service Building distributes all utilities (heat, 
power, water and medical gases) to all SFGH buildings. 
Changes in State regulations regarding construction of 
hospitals currently exceed the 1967 Uniform Building Code 
requirements that were followed in constructing the SFGH 
Service Building in 1972. The Service Building would be 
structurally reinforced to meet the current State 
requirements and to withstand a major earthquake. The 
piping, conduits and ducting that distributes these utilities to 
the various hospital buildings would be seismically anchored 
and braced. The proposed grant would also fund construction 
of a new water storage tank that would contain sufficient 
water to supply the steam driven power plant for one day. 

Fire Department Emergency Generators 

The proposed grant for emergency generators for the Fire 
Department would allow for the installation of emergency 
generators for 20 fire stations that do not currently have 
emergency generators. After an earthquake, the emergency 
generators would keep communications equipment fully 
operational and would provide power for all station functions 
(after the Loma Prieta earthquake, numerous neighborhood 
residents gathered at the fire stations). The installation 
would include the purchase of diesel generators having fuel 
tanks with a three day capacity, installation on a concrete 
base, construction of a weatherproof enclosure for the 
generators and corresponding wiring and switches to 
connect the generators to the stations. 

Fire Department Station Renovations 

The proposed grant for the renovation of six fire stations 
would provide for construction to reinforce the structural 
integrity of buildings housing Stations 11, 15, 21, 35 (Arson 
Task Force), 38 and the Ashbury Tank House. 

The Bureau of Architecture estimates the costs for the four 
projects as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 12, 1992 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


$1,689,464 


$949,527 $2,638,991 





28,200 


28,200 


145,600 


307,500 


453,100 


26,936 


42,953 


69,889 





160,538 


160,538 





66,170 


66,170 





307.112 


307.112 



$1,862,000 $1,862,000 $3,724,000 



LHH - Boiler Plant 



Construction 
Preliminary Planning 
Design and Engineering 
Project Administration 
Inspections 
Permits and Testing 
Contingencies 

Project Total 

SFGH - Service Building 



Construction 

Construction Management 
Design and Constr. Admin. 
Project Management 
Inspections 
Permits and Testing 
Contingencies 



Project Total $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $2,800,000 

Fire Dent - 20 Generators 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


1,400,000 


$378,000 


$1,778,000 





85,000 


85,000 





376,000 


376,000 





67,000 


67,000 





85,000 


85,000 





140,000 


140,000 





269.000 


269.000 



Generators & Construction 
Construction Management 
Design 
Contingencies 

Project Total 



FEMA 
Grant 

$418,800* 









City 

Costs 

$249,200 
51,400 
51,400 
66.800 



Project 
Total 

$668,000* 
51,400 
51,400 
66.800 



$418,800* $418,800 $837,600* 



*Based on the Bureau of Architecture's preliminary estimate 
of $837,600 for this project, FEMA would grant only half or 
$418,800 of the estimated cost (FEMA requires a 100 percent 
match). The Fire Department recommends that the 
legislation be amended to state the grant amount as "up to 
$500,000" instead of the amount of "$500,000" that was 
included in the original grant application, in case there are 
any cost overruns on the project and the full $500,000 in 
FEMA funding can be justified. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 12, 1992 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


1,209,500 $2,263,500 $3,473,000 





104,000 


104,000 





485,000 


485,000 





208,000 


208,000 





68,000 


68,000 





71,000 


71,000 





436.500 


436.500 



Fire Dept - Station Renovations 



Construction 

Project Management 

Design and Engineering 

Constr. Mgmt. & Insp. 

Programming & Planning 

Permits 

Contingencies 



Project Total $1,209,500 $3,636,000 $4,845,500 

Grand Total -Four Projects $4,890,300 $7,316,800$12,207,100 

100 percent of FEMA funding. All of the above projects except 
for the Fire Department Emergency Generators meet the 
match requirement. As noted above, an amendment to the 
proposed legislation will bring the Emergency Generator 
project into agreement with the 100 percent FEMA matching 
rule. 

Not allowed by FEMA. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
would authorize DPW to waive indirect costs. 

1. Although the Disability Access Checklist and the 
Summary of Grant Request forms are not in the file as of the 
writing of this report, Mr. John Sucich of the CAO's Office 
indicates that these forms will be added to the file before the 
Finance Committee meeting. 

2. Currently the four projects are still in the design phase 
and have not progressed to the bidding phase. Therefore, the 
proposed grant amounts for construction totalling $4,798,964 
($l,689,464+$l,400,000+$500,000+$l,209,500) should be 
reserved pending selection of the construction contractors 
and determination of the contractors' Minority Business 
Enterprise or Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) 
status. 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve a 
$4,798,964 for construction contracts as follows: 



total of 



LHH Boiler Plant $1,689,464 

SFGH Service Building 1,400,000 

Fire Department Emergency Generators 500,000 

Fire Department Station Renovations 1.209,500 

Total $4,798,964 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
August 12, 1992 



2. Amend the proposed resolution to state that the FEMA 
grant amount for the Fire Department Emergency 
Generators is "up to $500,000". 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item If - File 192-92-6 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 

Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to accept and expend a 
grant in the amount of $263,000 of Proposition 116 funds for 
the Commuter Bikeway Improvement Program, foregoing 
reimbursement of indirect costs. 

$263,000 

Fifteen months following final agreement with CalTrans (see 
Comment No. 7) 

California Department of Transportation - Proposition 116 

Commuter Bikeway Improvement Project 

In June, 1990, California voters approved Proposition 116, 
which provides approximately $4 million annually for bicycle 
programs throughout the State, awarded on a competitive 
basis. In August, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized 
the Department of Parking and Traffic to apply for up to 
$694,324 in Proposition 116 funds in order to restripe the right 
hand lanes of certain City streets to accommodate bicycle 
traffic. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Parking and Traffic to accept and expend $263,000 in 
Proposition 116 funds which the State Department of 
Transportation (CalTrans) has approved for allocation to San 
Francisco. The funds would be used to restripe City streets 
which are designated as bicycle commute routes in the City's 
Master Plan. All of the streets to be restriped using the 
proposed grant funds are 4-lane roads (2 lanes in each 
direction). In each direction, the left-hand lane would be 
narrowed in order to widen the right-hand lane to improve 
bicycle access and safety. This would not entail establishing 
"bike lanes" on the roadway. The DPT reports that the 
proposed projects are expected to be completed by early 
March, 1993. 

The proposed grant funds would be allocated under the 
State's 1991-92 Proposition 116 bicycle program. The 
Department of Parking and Traffic must apply by November 
20, 1992 for funds available in 1992-93 under this program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Budget: 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Traffic Engineering Services 
Materials and supplies 
Labor 

7,739 hours @ $31.25/hour 

Total Grant Amount 

None 



Amount 

$13,150 
8,000 

241.850 

$263,000 



Reimbursement for indirect costs is not allowed under this 
grant, according to CalTrans. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution states that indirect costs would be foregone. 

1. The Bicycle Advisory Committee reports that wider right 
hand lanes will enhance bicycle safety, attract a larger 
number of bicycle commuters, and implement transportation 
control measures contained in the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan. 
Increased bicycle commuting will also improve regional air 
quality, according to the Bicycle Advisory Committee. 

2. DPT has prepared a 5-year plan for the expenditure of 
Proposition 116 funds for bicycle improvements, involving 
bicycle-related restriping projects for approximately 26.7 
miles of City streets. The total cost of the 5-year plan is 
approximately $1.5 million, including $694,324 for fiscal year 
1991-92. 

3. The grant amount of $263,000 which has been approved by 
CalTrans is $431,324 or approximately 62 percent less than 
the $694,324 for which the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT) applied in August, 1991 (File 192-91-2). 

Mr. Peter Tannen, DPT Bicycle Coordinator, states that the 
streets to be restriped would be selected from DPT's existing 
"priority list" of bicycle improvement projects. However, the 
specific streets which would be restriped using the actual 
grant amount of $263,000 has not yet been determined, 
according to Mr. Tannen. The street restriping projects 
identified by DPT as being of highest priority (Priority One) 
would require expenditures of approximately $239,329, 
according to DPT. Projects included in the Priority Two list of 
projects are estimated to cost $90,000. The $329,329 total cost 
of these projects exceeds the proposed grant amount by 
$66,329. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



The Priority One list of projects includes lane widening and 
street restriping on Third Street, Ninth Street, Tenth Street, 
Alemany Blvd., Arguello Blvd., Army Street, Bay shore Blvd., 
Bosworth Street, Folsom Street, Geneva Avenue, Laguna 
Honda Blvd., Larkin Street, Portola Avenue, and Woodside 
Avenue. 

Priority Two projects include proposed lane widening and 
street restriping on Fulton Street, Geary Blvd., and 
Industrial St. 

4. According to DPT, all of the streets which have been 
included in the Proposition 116 Bicycle Program have been 
designated as Commute Bike Routes in the Transportation 
Element of the City's Master Plan. These streets are wide 
enough to permit inside vehicular lanes (closer to the 
median) to be narrowed in order to widen the right-hand 
lanes used by bicyclists. DPT reports that before any 
restriping is actually performed, field checks will be 
conducted to verify lane geometry and parking 
configurations. 

5. Mr. Tannen states that all of the proposed restriping 
projects would be performed by DPT's paint shop, but that 
additional temporary assistance would need to be hired for 
the project. The 1992-93 Annual Salary Ordinance reflects 
that DPT is authorized to employ 12 Class 7346 Painters, and 
2 Class 7242 Painter Supervisors. Mr. Ed Collins, the Paint 
Shop Supervisor, states that existing staff would not be 
sufficient to perform the bicycle restriping projects. Mr. 
Collins states that additional painters would be hired on a 
temporary, as needed basis, at an hourly rate of $31.25, to 
perform the work. 

6. Under the terms of the proposed grant, DPT would be 
reimbursed by CalTrans for the actual cost (up to $263,000) of 
restriping City streets to widen right lanes in order to 
accommodate bicycle traffic. 

7. According to Mr. Tannen, DPT was notified in April, 1992 
of the approval by CalTrans of the $263,000 in 1991-92 
Proposition 116 grant funds. Mr. Tannen reports that 
CalTrans subsequently amended the procedures for applying 
to receive the funds, and final procedures were not adopted by 
the State Transportation Commission until August 13, 1992. 

Mr. Tannen reports that DPT is authorized to expend the 
funds within 15 months of the approval of the grant award by 
CalTrans, which was received in April 1992. Thus, grant 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



funds would need to be expended prior to July, 1993. Mr. 
Tannen indicates that the period could be extended due to the 
administrative delays created by CalTrans. Since he expects 
the work to be completed by early March, 1993, Mr. Tannen 
does not expect DPT to exceed the deadline for expenditure of 
the funds. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item lg -File 100-92-1.2 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Release of reserved funds. 

Amount: $3,450,000 

Description: During the 1992-93 budget review, $1,263,000 for the Western 

Addition Economic Revitalization Program and $2,187,000 for 
the Hunters Point Economic Revitalization Program, for a 
total of $3,450,000 were placed on reserve by the Board of 
Supervisors pending submission of an economic development 
plan. The SFRA is requesting a release of these reserved 
funds. 

The Budget Analyst completed a management audit of the San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency in January of 1992 which 
included a finding and subsequent recommendations on the 
Redevelopment Agency's Economic Development Program. 
The Budget Analyst found that the process of implementing 
the SFRA's economic development program has not occurred 
in an effective and efficient manner. The SFRA Commission 
has yet to adopt an implementation plan for the program since 
its inception two years ago, funds have not been awarded 
through a competitive evaluation process, and no needs 
assessment has occurred prior to awarding funds for 
economic development programs. Additionally, the Mayor's 
Office of Economic Planning and Development has not 
developed goals and objectives to guide agency activities and to 
ensure the SFRA resources are used as efficiently as possible. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommended that the Board of 
Supervisors not approve additional funds for economic 
development activities until the SFRA submitted a 
comprehensive Citywide economic development plan. 

On July 14, 1992, the SFRA Commission and the Board of 
Supervisors Economic and Social Policy Committee held a 
joint hearing to consider the African-American Economic 
Empowerment Task Force recommendations for the $3.4 
million in Economic Development Funds (see Comment 1 
below for a description of the Task Force's 
recommendations.) After public comments, the Agency 
Commission unanimously approved the African-American 
Economic Empowerment Task Force recommendations and 
agreed to fund one of the recommendations, a Small 
Business Revolving Loan fund for $2.45 million of the $3.45 
million on reserve. In addition, as a result of the Joint SFRA 
Commission and Board of Supervisors Economic and Social 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Policy hearing, the Commission decided to use the 
remaining $1 million on a Youth Employment Program 
which was not one of the recommendations of the Task Force. 

The SFRA is submitting the Task Force's recommendations 
as its economic development plan for the Western Addition 
and Hunters Point Project Areas. As previously noted, the 
Agency proposes to spend $1 million ($500,000 for the Western 
Addition Project Area and $500,000 for Hunter Point Project 
Area) on a pilot Youth Employment Program and the 
balance, $2,450,000 ($763,000 for the Western Addition Project 
Area and $1,687,000 for the Hunters Point Project Area), to a 
small business revolving loan program. 

The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund would be 
implemented using the existing administrative structure. 
Under the existing structure, the Urban Economic 
Development Corporation (UEDC), a non-profit corporation 
which prepares the loan packages and provides technical 
assistance to potential borrowers, the Mayor's Office of 
Economic Planning and Development (MOEPD) reviews the 
loan packages and the SFRA Commission approves them. 
The SFRA staff prepares and disseminates Requests for 
Proposals (RFPs). SFRA staff would be responsible, in 
conjunction with the Mayor's Office, for reviewing proposals 
and preparing summaries for Commission consideration. 
MOEPD is responsible for fund disbursement and monitoring 
programs or projects. 

Comments: 1. In FY 1991-92, an African-American Economic 

Development Empowerment Task Force, comprised of 25 
members, was appointed by the Mayor to 1) advise the San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency on the disbursement of the 
approximately $3.4 million remaining to be allocated out of 
the SFRA's economic development funds targeted for the 
Western Addition and Hunters Point, and 2) to recommend 
policies, projects and activities that would help to promote 
small business and employment for African Americans. The 
Task Force began meeting in August of 1991 and completed a 
report in April of 1992 that addresses their first charge to 
advise the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on the 
disbursement of the approximately $3.4 million remaining to 
be allocated out of the SFRA's economic development funds 
targeted for the Western Addition and Hunters Point. In its 
April, 1992 report, the Task Force recommends allocating 
$3,177,037 of economic development funds as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Small Business Revolving Loan Fund $2,377,037 

To provide additional capitalization of $2,377,037 

for the Agency's Small Business Loan and 

Investment Program, and to revise the eligibility 

requirements and underwriting criteria of the 

Program, including expanded geographic area 

and increased loan amounts. 

Youth Entrepreneurship Project 300,000 

To establish a pilot project using $300,000 to fund 
activities, programs and projects which promote 
youth (under 24 years of age) involvement in 
business and entrepreneurship. 

Marketing and Cultural Promotions 250,000 

To establish a $250,000 fund to develop, market, 
and promote cultural activities and African 
American Business enterprise. 

Planning and Research 250.000 

To establish a $250,000 fund for long-term 
planning, research of emerging development 
issues, coordinating community planning and 
related activities. 

Total ■ $3,177,037 

As previously stated, the SFRA decided to only fund one of the 
Task Force's recommendation, the Small Business Revolving 
Loan Fund in amount of $2.45 million instead of $2,377,037 as 
recommended by the Task Force and to use the remaining $1 
million on the Youth Employment Program which had not 
been recommended by the Task Force. 

2. According to the SFRA, the Youth Employment Program 
is still in the conceptual stage and the Agency has not 
developed a specific plan for the Youth Employment 
Program. As such, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
$1 million budgeted for the Youth Employment Program 
remain on reserve pending the SFRA's submission to the 
Board of Supervisors of a specific plan for the Youth 
Employment Program. 

3. The Task Force recommended that the criteria for 
awarding the Small Business Loans be changed to recognize 
historical impediments and factors that combine to disqualify 
most African-American applicants. The Task Force 
recommended the following criteria changes: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



1. Increase maximum loan amounts from $100,000 to 
$200,000 for individual businesses and $300,000 for 
franchises. 

2. Reduce equity requirements to five percent from 10 to 
20 percent of the total project cost which must be in the 
form of either "hard cash" or cash equivalents in 
verifiable assets. 

3. Lack of collateral would not automatically make an 
applicant ineligible. 

4. If an applicant meets these other criteria, an adverse 
credit report would not automatically disqualify said 
applicant for financial assistance. The SFRA would be 
able to evaluate the applicant's credit history on a case by 
case basis. 

5. Project area boundaries would be broadened to include 
the area beyond the Fillmore Center and beyond Bayview 
Plaza to accommodate Citywide needs and market 
diversity. The eligible area would broadly be the Western 
Addition A-2 Redevelopment Area and South Bayshore 
(see maps on the following pages.) 

4. The interest rates of the proposed small business loans 
would be between two and three percent below the prime 
interest rate. The loan repayment period would be less than 
seven years and could not exceed the life of the equipment, if 
any equipment is purchased with the loan. 

5. The SFRA reports that neither the MOEPD nor UEDC 
would receive additional funding to administer the proposed 
Revolving Loan Program. Both agencies would administer 
the proposed program under existing agreements with 
SFRA. 

6. The Budget Analyst's Management Audit report 
recommended that the SFRA develop a Citywide Economic 
Development Plan and that such plan be submitted to the 
Board of Supervisors for approval. The SFRA is submitting 
an economic development plan for two project areas that 
targets one minority group. However, although the economic 
development plan submitted by SFRA is not a comprehensive 
Citywide plan, the Budget Analyst acknowledges that the 
SFRA has developed a plan which assessed the community's 
needs prior to allocating economic development funds. In 
addition, the funds on reserve are for the Western Addition 
and the Hunters Point Project Areas, which are the two 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

areas the Task Force's plan addresses. As such, the Budget 
Analyst recommends releasing $2.45 million of the requested 
$3.45 million on reserve and to continue to reserve $1 million 
pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of a plan for 
the Youth Employment Program. 

Recommendations: 1. Release $2.45 million of the requested $3.45 million for the 
Small Business Loan Program. 

2. Continue to reserve $1 million pending submission to the 
Board of Supervisors of a plan for the Youth Employment 
Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 




37 




^gj^m hn m*f S BCSUl& *i " aT *Q_ 5 W> 



South Bayshore Study Area 

- study Area Boundary Line 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Item lh - File 68-92-10 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of San 
Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a grant for lead- 
based paint abatement from the U. S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD). 

Up to $6,000,000 

Thirty-six months following Grant Approval 

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
Office of Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning 
Prevention. 

San Francisco's Lead Based Paint Abatement Program 

The City's Lead-Based Paint Abatement Program will be used 
to provide funds for the testing and inspection of housing 
constructed prior to 1978, housing rehabilitation to carry out 
the abatement of lead-based paint and the abatement of other 
related lead-based paint hazards. The program targets lead- 
based paint abatement activities in low and moderate income 
private housing. 

The Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) is currently preparing a 
project budget for the subject grant application. 

No specific requirement. However, since the awarding of these 
Federal grant funds is on a competitive basis, and the amount 
and kind of local contributions are considered in approving 
such applications for grants, MOH plans to specify the 
amounts and sources of the local match and whether the local 
match will be provided in cash or by in-kind services. 

Up to $600,000, (10% of the grant amount awarded) 

1. At the present time, the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) is 
in the process of preparing its application for the subject funds, 
so a detailed description of the program and related budget 
expenditures is not yet available. However, since the City's 
application, including Board of Supervisors' authorization, 
must be submitted to HUD by September 21, 1992, the Mayor 
has submitted the subject resolution for Board of Supervisors 
review and approval at this time. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

2. Until MOH provides more information on the City's 
application and project budget for a lead-based paint abatement 
program, the subject legislation should be amended to delete 
the approval to accept and expend the proposed grant funds. 
The Board of Supervisors should, however, authorize the 
Mayor to apply for the subject grant funds in order for the City 
to meet the deadline established by HUD for the submission of 
the City's grant application. MOH concurs with this 
amendment. 

3. The subject legislation should also be amended to correct 
clerical errors as follow: 

• Correct the resolution's title to indicate that the grant is 
for lead-based paint abatement; 

• Add to the first resolve clause that the grant is for a total 
amount not to exceed six million dollars ($6,000,000); and 

• Add a Further Resolved clause that $600,000 of indirect 
costs associated with the acceptance of these grant funds is 
included in the application budget. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution as follows: 

Page 1, Lines 3 and 24, delete the phrase "accept and expend"; 

Page 1, Line 3 after "grant" add "for Lead-based paint 
abatement"; 

Page 2, Line 1 after "Development" add "for a total amount not 
to exceed six million dollars ($6,000,000)"; and 

Page 2, After Line 3 add "FURTHER RESOLVED, That $600,000 
of Indirect Costs associated with the acceptance of these grant 
funds is included in the application budget". 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 9, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 127-92-7 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 
Municipal Code by amending Section 506 to exempt certain 
hotels from the Hotel Tax. 

Municipal Code Article 7 - Sections 502, 502.5 and 502.6 
provide for the imposition of a tax totaling 11 percent on the 
rate charged to occupy a guest room in a hotel in the City. A 
hotel is defined as any structure or portion of a structure 
including any lodging house, rooming house, dormitory, 
Turkish bath, bachelor hotel, studio hotel, motel, auto 
court, inn, public club, or private club containing guest 
rooms which are occupied or intended to be occupied by 
guests. 

Section 504 stipulates that the Hotel Tax is to be collected 
from the occupant of the guest room at the same time that 
the hotel rent is collected. However, according to Section 
506, no tax shall be imposed: (1) upon a permanent 
resident; (2) upon a corporation or association having 
formally recognized tax exempt status; or (3) where the rent 
at the hotel is less than $20 per day or $85 per week. 

The proposed ordinance would provide that guests at hotels 
operated by tax exempt, charitable, educational, or 
scientific organizations are exempt from the Hotel Tax, 
provided that the operation of the hotel fits within the 
charitable, educational, or scientific purpose of the 
organization. Mr. Thad Brown of the Tax Collector's Office 
advises that the Tax Collector currently does not collect 
Hotel Taxes from tax-exempt hotels themselves. Instead, 
Hotel Taxes are collected from guests who stay at tax- 
exempt hotels. 

In summary, currently, tax-exempt hotels are exempt from 
paying the Hotel Tax, but guests at tax-exempt hotels are 
not exempt from paying the Hotel Tax. The proposed 
ordinance would exempt such guests from paying the Hotel 
Tax. 

1. The current Hotel Tax rate is 11 percent. It is divided 
between an 8 percent basic rate and a 1.75 percent 
surcharge allocated to the City's General Fund and a 1.25 
percent surcharge allocated to the Convention Facilities for 
Moscone Center expansion. Total revenues from the 11 
percent Hotel Tax rate in FY 1992-93 are budgeted at $76.6 
million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 9, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. Information regarding tax-exempt status is not currently 
requested from hotels by the Tax Collector, Mr. Brown 
reports. Therefore, the Tax Collector is unable at this time 
to estimate the extent to which hotels might claim 
exemption, on behalf of their guests, if the proposed 
ordinance is approved. 

Because the Tax Collector is unable at this time to estimate 
the extent to which hotels might claim exemption, the fiscal 
impact of the proposed ordinance cannot be determined at 
this time. However, Mr. Brown advises that Hotel Taxes 
are collected from guests at a number of large, tax-exempt 
hotels, such as the YMCA, and that the fiscal impact of the 
proposed legislation might therefore be significant. 

3. The sponsor of the proposed ordinance has requested that 
the proposed ordinance be continued to the call of the 
Chair. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance to the call of the Chair. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item 3 - File 146-92-65 

Note: This item was continued at the September 2, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Central Administration 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Central Administration, in collaboration with the State 
Department of Mental Health, as primary grantee, to accept 
and expend a two year extension grant from the Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation of $475,569 with $1,060,000 of matching 
funds from the primary grantee for a total of $1,535,569, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $133,776 
based on nine percent of personnel and office supplies, for 
the provision of a system of care for children and youth who 
are seriously emotionally disturbed and their families. 

$1,535,569 

August 1, 1992 to July 31, 1994 (two years) 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

Family Mosaic Project 

The Family Mosaic Project is a four-year effort to develop an 
interagency system of care for children and youth with 
serious emotional problems who are at risk of out-of-home 
placement or currently are in out-of-home placement. The 
interagency system would include San Francisco Unified 
School District (SFUSD), Juvenile Probation, Department off 
Social Services (DSS) and Department of Mental Health 
(DMH). The DPH previously received a grant of $1,620,000 for 
the Family Mosaic Project in 1990 (File 146-90-62; Resolution 
No. 713-90). In March of 1992 DPH received a grant 
augmentation of $158,408 from the Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation to develop a structure to receive, disburse, and 
monitor on-going funding through MediCal for the Family 
Mosaic Project. The Project is completing the first two-year 
phase of program implementation which provided a 
preliminary analysis of services and costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

2-Year Budget: 

DPH 

Personnel FTE 

Project Director 
Accounting Clerk 
Secretary II 
Registered Nurse 
Salary Savings 
Mandatory Fringe 

Subtotal Personnel 3.04 



0.54 


$78,181 


1.0 


47,322 


1.0 


70,861 


0.5 


61,199 




(67,548) 





49.404 



239,419 



Operating Expenses 



Travel (Staff, client, consultant) 

Training 

Current Services 

Duplication and Printing 

Telephones 

Materials & Supplies 

Rent 



96,160 
12,800 
3,000 
8,000 
24,750 
65,030 
84.000 



Subtotal Operating Expenses 

Equipment 

HD Personal Computer (6 @ $1,650) 

Network 

Universal Power Supply 

Cable 

Micro Laser XL Printer 

Installation of Network 

MITA DC-5585 Console Copier 

Bin Sorter 

Tax & Delivery 

Video Equipment 

Ficoh Fax 86 



293,740 



9,900 

825 

225 

100 

3,900 

1,565 

13,495 

1,920 

1,121 

2,949 

2JEQ 



Subtotal Equipment 

Indirect Costs @ 9% of 
Personnel and Materials 
& Supplies 

Other Subcontracts 

Student Stipends 

Total DPH 



38,050 



56,749 

150,980 

21,000 



3.04 



$799,938 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Contracts 

Universit y of California 

Psychiatrist 

Fringes 

Total UCSF 



FTE 



0.25 



0.25 



Bavview Hunters Point Foundation (BVHP) 

Fiscal Manager 

Sr. Accountant 

Contract Coordinator 

Training Coordinator 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal Personnel 

Training Expense 
Consultant Honoraria 
Indirect Costs @ 10% of total 
grant funding less indirect 
costs or $438,002 



Amount 



$45,516 
11.835 



$57,351 



1.0 


103,361 




1.0 


67,896 




1.0 


92^08 




0.15 


15,810 

55.855 




3.15 




$335,130 

15,000 
87,872 

43.800 



Total BVHP 



3.15 



481,802 



Instituto Familiar 






Clinical Supervisors 


0.25 


45,090 


Communication Specialist 


1.0 


85,680 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




31.385 


Subtotal Personnel 


1.25 




Indirect Costs @ 15% of 






Personnel 







Total Instituto Familiar 
Total Grant Budget 



1.25 



162,155 



24.323 



$186,478 
$1,525,569 



Required Match; None 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



The entire grant would serve 650 children and their 
families, or approximately 1,950 individuals. 

$133,776, based on nine percent of salaries and materials 
and supplies 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Comments: 1. According to the proposed resolution, the proposed grant 

includes $475,569 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 
with $1,060,000 of matching funds from the primary grantee, 
the State Department of Mental Health, for a total of 
$1,535,569 which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$133,776. However, according to Mr. Pablo Bravo of the 
Department of Public Health, the proposed grant includes 
$475,569 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and 
$1,050,000 from the primary grantee for a total of $1,525,569 
which includes $56,749 in indirect costs. As such, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to read $1,050,000 
from the primary grantee for a total of $1,525,569 which 
include indirect costs in the amount of $56,749 instead of 
$1,060,000 of matching funds from the primary grantee for a 
total of $1,535,569 which includes indirect costs in the 
amount of $133,776 as the proposed resolution currently 
reads. 

2. According to the DPH, if grant funding is reduced or 
terminated, personnel are anticipated to be funded through 
MediCal and AB 377 State funds. If such funds are not 
available, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant would fund 3.04 FTEs for 
DPH. 

3. According to DPH, indirect costs would be $56,749, based 
on nine percent of salaries and materials and supplies of the 
entire Family Mosaic Project Budget which includes 
$326,095 in non grant funding. As such, indirect costs are 
nine percent of a total of $630,544 in salaries and materials 
and supplies ($304,449 of the proposed grant funds and 
$326,095 of non grant funding.) 

4. According to Mr. Bravo, DPH would contract with the 
University of California at San Francisco, at $57,351, 
Bayview Hunters Point Foundation, at $481,802, and 
Institute Familiar, at $186,478, to provide mental health and 
case management services. The Consultant Honoraria 
under the Bayview Hunters Point Foundation contract, at 
$87,872, include actuarial services which are mandated by 
the funder, with consultants selected by the funder. All of 
the proposed contracts are continuation contracts. 

6. Mr. Bravo reports that the $96,160 budgeted for DPH travel 
would fund the following: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Staff Travel (Client Related) $36,160 

Fast passes for clients and funds 
for case managers to travel to meet 
with clients and service providers. 

Staff Travel (Non-client Related) 44,000 

Local travel to meetings in 
Sacramento with DMH, State 
Inter-Agency Advisory Council on 
Systems Care Committee 
(SIACOC) to provide technical 
assistance, attend local 
conferences and meeting. Non- 
local travel to State sponsored and 
national training, the annual 
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 
meetings, technical workshops, 
Child Adolescent Service System 
Program (CASSP) conferences 
outside Bay Area and California. 
Wrap Around Conferences, case 
management conferences, etc. 

Consultant Travel 16,000 

During the two years of the 

proposed grant funded project, the 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

will sponsor training sessions to 

assist with the expansion of the 

system of care. The Family Mosaic 

Project will utilize experts from 

both inside and outside California 

to provide training to county 

administrators and staff as well as 

other interested persons. The 

Family Mosaic project will provide 

travel expenses for trainers, out of 

state consultants and consumers 

consultants to participate in the 

training sessions. In addition, the 

Project will utilize outside 

consultants for infrastructure and 

program development to further 

develop a funding structure. 



Total Travel Funding $96,160 

7. Mr. Bravo reports that the $150,980 budgeted for DPH to 
fund Other Subcontracts would be used to provide funding to 
organizations or individual mental health and cast- 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

hi 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

management providers on an as-needed basis. The 
Department has a list of 126 approved service providers who 
could be contacted to provide services during the two-year 
grant period. A service provider would be selected depending 
on the needs of the individual child requiring mental health 
or case management services. 

8. The period for the proposed grant began on August 1, 1992. 
As such, the proposed resolution should be amended to allow 
DPH to accept and expend the proposed grant retroactively. 

9. The DPH has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

10. A Summary of Grant Request form, as prepared by the 
Department, is attached. 

Recommendations: Amend the proposed resolution in the title and in the text on 
lines 11 through 13 as follows: 

1. $1,050,000 from the primary grantee for a total of 
$1,525,569 which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$56,749 instead of $1,060,000 of matching funds from the 
primary grantee for a total of $1,535,569 which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $133,776. 

2. Authorize DPH to accept and expend the proposed grant 
retroactively. 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



lupberc i.'3H 12L51PM FAMILY MOSAIC PROJ. P7z?g~ 

n ^gfamc of Mental Bealch. Olv'xioa Deoarrm*ax of Public HeaXch 

** e n crf «£ . SSCE Mattaies Se<:l»s Cagrral .AcVtMsr-rgr-rnn 

•- s *"* r: ifiQO Sinth Scraet, Rn 250 Coati=: ?e?soa 

■**--•" j gg cra nftB tft' Caltf. «**i* Tdepaoae ,/4i^) 7niWfinn ; 

. rj.-ef.ei S 1.535.569 Amplication" DcitJUa* Msrr* 3JL, tqo^ 

30 = " J^*-5 _ 



i.-.~« 



Fro = 



8/1/92 7 7/31/94 Notlfica-Jos ga?«s;ac Jul* 31. 1992 



c«»=3iis»*& . 3oi--d of Supervisors: Fi2*a«» ComstRct 

?stt 3esrs 



_t>^-. r>* «^^n;tnf»r S»5tt€R a (apply for) ^|gspt ad gys^ z (ae«>) (cassauaiaa) (aUasttion) (z= jcsnsSoa ;• a) 
tc*» ****>*— ** ciritach6 2nocmQf S"i^ZgO&9 ^aaapgdodof 3/1/92 to 7/ll(<ft> 

mpravkj- svaeea of care, far .-Mtdrftn 6 -rntirH gjtj) 2*Z±BI1£ ^n^h., Blf vLa 



<:r»^~<?r^* 



1 collabor ation vleh State Deisartniaag of Keaeal Health .-nor-f^,.* JBBl3gfiSS&C£ga gg nn jn- ,— 
gynev sisters of care for children & vouch vita serloas emotional disturbances S'tiieir frwi*-> 
^ <r>fflti<?ft SjTTSD. Juvenile ?robatioa.' DSS. DtST. >•" ™-f*|fgi** e fragmentati on and ■tn ^pivro pTiy.s 
«-p#. Tha cgo-yesr- continuation vi!,! ser» f ***Q "^^ dren ages 3~16 yeara ^Ica . ctiT.Cnra.lly 
pnroceeng services via, cittr and contract sarricea. 

'7. (>9T<rtifrT<r<(Oki*eti»-+! ■ * 

. Reduction in otttt-of -kerne placements for target popnlation. 

. Increased stabHgation la setting chat are least restrictive for children out-or-ayn ». 

. Decrease in costs of care for target population throttgh integrated case Bsnagcmea c. 

L V ajg^lv Mosaic Prefect vonld not be able to' cbntlxtttft to develop store cose effective jg* ?- 
gStlon compared to current ont-of-hciae aad ont-of>cottncy placements . larger "'jaopmattca -.L.L 
anr-frma» rn -r^* *™* •fo^ decuate and fratonented services. 

'. FtnmcfoT 7nforrne^'oTT« « 

* * Past 2 Years" Next" 2 Years 
gflf. A. c°i. 3 c^ c- • . c»T. .9 Etc. jfaaft iasrsuuL-i.- 



Jr-aac Aasocas ■ 1,778,408 IszS.Sb *) 

*r$aaset L. &3U025 rfSifcY/^-, 

Iqnipseas ! 31 .408 ' .3?^^>- 

btttries Svc Liflft»ai J&%6W. 

Itz. £1 S* ?? . , 7? A 640 _&,&&. 

keSUsEes/Spaes 



adif««s Cd«u 29.265 ZM^S^ 



7T 



T>»«»» gyrtf.^fyfw^ 



289,588 



*»—«,»„« .t 



re esc 

*rr esc 

^oaer*c-eit 



P«arss<*) of ios-^r»=r fsallct for satriw of CSC tsatejata -"^.-Tdat sa--:-i=4 oa ^ils jrsau 

— IMfcfiaL, Sqejai Cand .. , : , 

'"»21 rrasc fsaatd trijloye^x b« rtnirtd aJ^r tij* jrrsc ttr^taxua? If «, 3o<r? 

.VJ-th f^ndiay tgeneraced; fhrnnyh Medl-Cal capjtaclon and chrough AB377 Scaca Ftiads 

r^.^ ^,, g.r-r4>«>. 0?«a 3td 5— Sola Soerct ' cx-i. 



49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item 4 - File 25-92-22 

Note: This item was continued at the August 12, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. The Finance Committee members had concerns regarding the 
provision of health insurance by the low bidders to their employees and 
payment of the prevailing wage. 



Department: 



Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Police Department 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) that 
certain services can continue to be practically performed by a 
private contractor for a lower cost than similar services 
performed by the City and County of San Francisco. 



Janitorial Services for all nine District Police stations, the 
Police Academy, the Pistol Range, the Juvenile Division, and 
the Golden Gate stables. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
janitorial services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 

Highest Lowest 

Salary Step Salary Step 



DPW Operated Costs 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Savings for Contracted 
Service Cost 



$740,230 
280.000 



$617,815 
280.000 



$460,230 $337,815 



1. The above DPW Operated Cost estimate reflects amounts 
submitted by the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the 
Controller and certified by the Controller. The Contracted 
Service Cost estimate is based on the approximate lowest 
price bid received from the three janitorial contract bidders 
on July 27, 1992. 

2. DPW currently provides janitorial services to the Police 
Department. FY 1992-93 would be the first year that the Police 
Department would fully contract for these janitorial services. 

3. According to Officer Tom Strong, of the Police 
Department's Accounting Office, the Police Department paid 
$67,592 to the Department of Public Works to provide 
janitorial services during the period of July 1, 1992 to August 
31, 1992 from the Police Department's FY 1992-93 Building 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



and Repair budget. The Police Department continues to 
purchase janitorial services from DPW pending selection of 
the private contractors. Mr. Strong advises that a total of 
$280,000 has been budgeted for contracted janitorial services 
in the FY 1992-93 budget. The $67,592 used to provide 
janitorial services in July and August, as well as any 
amounts required to be expended pending selection of 
contractors, will be deducted from the $280,000 and returned 
to the Building and Repair account. The remaining balance 
will be used to pay for the contracted janitorial services. 

4. Mr. Steve Lutz, Senior Analyst of the Police Department's 
Planning Division, reports that the scope of janitorial 
services provided to the Police Department would eliminate 
the Hibernia Bank Building facility and add the Pistol Range. 
In addition, Mr. Lutz stated that the Police Department has 
not been satisfied with the level of service currently provided 
by DPW. As a result, Mr. Arnie Sowell of the Controller's 
Office reports that the 1992-93 proposed in-house versus 
contracted services represent a higher level of janitorial 
services than what has been historically provided. Mr. 
Raymond Zahndt of the Department of Public Works 
estimates that to provide the level of service the Police 
Department is now requesting, the Department of Public 
Works would have to expand their current staff level from 6 
FTE to 13 FTE. This increased level of service is reflected 
above in the DPW Operated Cost estimate and Contracted 
Service Cost estimate provided by the Controller's Office. 

5. The Finance Committee requested that the Controller 
estimate the costs of the Police Department providing these 
services directly by employing janitors. The Controller has 
determined that Police Department In-house Janitorial 
Services as compared with DPW Janitorial Services and 
contractual janitorial services are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Highest Lowest 

Salary Step Salary Step 



DPW Operated Costs $740,230 $617,815 

Police Department In-House 
Janitorial Services 726.344 625.934 

Estimated Savings for Police vs DPW 
Janitorial Services $13,886 ($8,119) 



Police Department In-House 
Janitorial Services 726,344 625,934 

Contracted Service Cost 280.000 280.000 

Estimated Savings for Contracted 
Service Cost vs. Police In-House $446^44 $345,934 

Therefore, as noted above, it would be between $8,119 more 
expensive to $13,886 less expensive for the Police Department 
to directly provide its own janitorial services in 1992-93 rather 
than through DPW. However, as also noted above, it would be 
approximately $345,934 to $446,344 less expensive for the 
Police Department to contract out for janitorial services than 
to hire in-house janitors in the Police Department. As 
previously discussed, changing from the current DPW 
janitorial services to contractual janitorial services would 
result in an estimated 1992-93 annualized savings ranging 
from approximately $337,815 to $460,230. 

6. Mr. Carl Bunch of the Mayor's Office, Employee Relations 
Division, advises that the City of San Francisco does not have 
a duty to meet and confer with the Union regarding the 
contracting out of services before a decision is made unless 
layoffs will occur as a result of the decision. However, 
following a decision to contract out, the City does have an 
obligation to meet and confer with the Union regarding the 
impact of the decision on bargaining unit employees. The 
Service Employees International Union's (SEIU), 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also states that upon 
request by the Union and prior to the City making any final 
decision, the City will hold informational meetings with the 
Union to discuss and attempt to resolve issues relating to the 
contracting out of services. Mr Bunch reports that there have 
been no requests for informational meetings from the Union. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

7. The Controller's Office notes that the proposed Proposition 
J certification must be approved prior to any contract for 
services being awarded. The Controller's supplemental 
questionnaire with the Department's responses, including 
MBE/WBE status, is attached. 

8. The Police Department has rejected all of the original bids 
and has asked the Purchasing Department to rebid the 
contracts for janitorial services (the janitorial services duties 
are to be split into two parts in order to allow two contractors 
to obtain City contracts). Mr. Ara Manasian of the 
Purchasing Department states that the deadline for receiving 
the new bids was Thursday, September 3, 1992 and that 
evaluation of the new bids and determination of the lowest 
bidders will not be completed before Tuesday, September 8, 
1992. Therefore, as of the writing of this report, the lowest 
bidders have not yet been determined and the bidders' 
intentions to provide health insurance for their employees 
and pay prevailing wages have not been evaluated. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



07/22/92 13:54 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS --~ HARVEY M ROSE _ftOM_ 

Attachment 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department San Francisco Police Department 

Contract Services Janitorial Service 

Time Period 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Department of Public Works Janitorial. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? 

None, these employees should easily be absorbed into 
DPW operations. 

3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

Trained janitorial employee would be able to find 
employment in federal, state and private sectors. 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

100% 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

These services have been performed by the Department 
of Public Works; they have never been contracted out. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

It Is anticipated to commence by 1992-1993. 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

The competitive bid process will insure compliance. 
Present contractor at the Hibernia Bank Police 
Building is MBE/LBE. 



r^^ 




Department /Representative MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN 

SERGEANT OF POLICE 



(Type Name, Title) 

557-6720 

Telephone 

cxlquesp j 



54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item 5 - File 173-92-2 

Department: Port of San Francisco (Port) 

Item: Ordinance to approve the first amendment to the Marine 

Terminal Agreement with Evergreen Marine Corporation 
allowing a fifty percent sharing of demurrage revenue 
(demurrage revenues are fees charged to the owners of cargo 
that remains on a pier for an excessive period of time). 

Description: Evergreen Marine Corporation (EMC) has been a tenant at 

the Port for 12 years and currently operates under a Marine 
Terminal Agreement that was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in 1990 (Ordinance No. 594-90). 

In fiscal year 1991-92, EMC paid a total of approximately 
$1,628,000 to the Port for wharfage (approximately $1,178,000), 
dockage (approximately $76,000) and crane rental 
(approximately $374,000). In FY 1991-92, approximately 
$111,000 was paid to the Port for demurrage of cargo by the 
owners of cargo that was handled by EMC. 

Cargo may remain on a pier for ten days at no charge. After 
the ten days, the Port charges a fee of $36 per day for a forty- 
foot container for the first five days beyond the ten free days, 
and $72 per day thereafter. If the owner of the cargo 
anticipates a delay in being able to move the cargo, the owner 
may ask the steamship line (such as EMC) to request that the 
Port extend the free time or allow the cargo to be put into 
storage at the lower rate of $18.20 per day for a forty-foot 
container. (Demurrage and storage rates for twenty-foot 
containers are half the rates for forty-foot containers.) 

The Port reports that of the five steamship lines at the South 
Container Terminal, only EMC does not currently have an 
agreement to share in the demurrage revenues collected by 
the Port for cargo handled by EMC. The other four steamship 
lines have agreements whereby they receive either 45 or 50 
percent of the demurrage revenues for cargo that they handle 
and the Port retains either 55 or 50 percent. The Port 
indicates that EMC receives 75 percent of the demurrage 
revenues for cargo handled by EMC at the ports of Los 
Angeles and Tacoma. According to the Port, the federal 
Shipping Act of 1984 gives EMC the right to be given a share 
of demurrage revenues in order to receive the same 
treatment as other steamship lines at the Port. If the Port 
does not give EMC a share of demurrage revenues, EMC 
could petition the Federal Maritime Commission to order 
such a sharing arrangement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



The proposed ordinance would approve the first amendment 
to the current Marine Terminal Agreement between the Port 
and EMC to add a provision whereby EMC would receive a 50 
percent share of the demurrage revenues collected by the Port 
for cargo handled by EMC. 

Although the Port would lose approximately $55,500 in 
demurrage revenues based on the amount collected in FY 
1991-92 (50% of $111,000), the Port indicates that by giving 
EMC a share of the demurrage revenues for cargo that EMC 
handles, EMC will have an incentive to not request storage 
for cargo that cannot be moved by the cargo owner. This 
would result in either a greater amount of total demurrage 
revenue or faster movement of cargo to avoid the higher 
demurrage fee rates (as opposed to the lower storage rates) 
which in turn would result in freeing up space and a greater 
turnover of cargo that should further result in greater 
wharfage and crane rental revenues. 

To illustrate the benefits of the proposed sharing of 
demurrage revenues, the Port relates the actual case of the 
agreement with COSCO, another steamship line at the Port. 
The COSCO Maritime Terminal Agreement was renewed in 
1989 and included a provision for a 50 percent share of 
demurrage revenues. For the three years preceding the 
renewal, the Port received approximately $142,000 
representing 100 percent of the demurrage revenues 
collected. For the three years after the renewal, the Port's 50 
percent share was approximately $163,000 and COSCO's 50 
percent share was also $163,000. The Port's $163,000 share 
was $21,000 ($163,000 less $142,000) or approximately 15 
percent more than had been received in the previous three 
years when there was no sharing of demurrage revenues. 
The Port has not analyzed the corresponding increases in 
wharfage and crane rental revenues. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item 6 -File 161-92-4.1 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Resubmission of the SFRA's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget to the 

Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992 for reconsideration 
in light of the fiscal impact to the SFRA and to the City's 
General Fund that may result from the final adoption of the 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget of the State of California. 

Description: During its review of the Redevelopment Agency's FY 1992-93 

budget in August of 1992, the Board of Supervisors amended 
the Agency's Budget to require the Agency to resubmit its 
budget to the Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992. The 
Board of Supervisors wanted to reconsider the Agency's 
budget when the impact on the City from the State budget 
reductions were known. As of the writing of this report, the 
State has not adopted a budget. As such, the Budget Analyst 
recommends continuing the proposed item pending a final 
adoption of the FY 1992-93 budget for the State of California 
and submission by the SFRA to the Board of Supervisors of 
the State budget's impact on the SFRA. 

Recommendations: 1. Continue the proposed item pending final adoption of the 
FY 1992-93 budget for the State of California. 

2. Request the SFRA to submit a written analysis of the State 
budget's impact on the SFRA. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Item 7 -File 97-92-50 

Department: Juvenile Probation Department 

Item: Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by adding 

Sections 8.36 and 8.36-1 thereto authorizing the Juvenile 
Probation Department to charge fees for certain services and 
documents. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would authorize the Juvenile 

Probation Department to collect the following fees: 

1. A ten percent administrative fee for collecting and 
processing victim restitution payments would be collected by 
the Juvenile Probation Department. Currently, if a minor is 
convicted of theft, the minor is required to pay the victim 
restitution, the amount of which is determined by the judge 
presiding over the case. The judge would also be responsible 
for assessing the proposed ten percent fee which would be 
based on the restitution amount. The proposed ten percent 
administrative fee would be paid in addition to the restitution. 
The Juvenile Probation Department is responsible for 
collecting the victim restitution fine. The proposed ten 
percent fee would cover the Department's costs to process the 
fines. 

2. A $200 maximum charge for investigating and processing 
stepparent adoptions would be established. The proposed $200 
maximum fee would be paid by the stepparent. The proposed 
ordinance allows the Department to waive, reduce or defer 
the proposed fee when the payment would cause economic 
hardship to the prospective parent. 

The Department reports that these fees were included in the 
Department's FY 1992-93 budget and are part of the 
Department's efforts to generate new revenues to support 
direct services. 

Comments: 1. In FY 1992-93, the Department anticipates collecting 

approximately $800 from the proposed $200 maximum charge 
for investigating and processing stepparent adoptions and 
approximately $2,550 from the proposed ten percent 
administrative fee for collecting and processing victim 
restitution payments for a total of $3,350. In the following 
fiscal years the Department expects to receive approximately 
$1,200 from the proposed $200 maximum charge for 
investigating and processing stepparent adoptions and 
approximately $3,400 from the proposed ten percent 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



administrative fee for collecting and processing victim 
restitution payments for a total of $4,600. 

2. The proposed fees would be deposited in the City's General 
Fund to be used by the Juvenile Probation Department. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed ordinance. 




^ 



arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



O-aS 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 

Km 

Item le - File 148-92-7 



(Pub tic LiBrary, "Documents (Dcpt. 



REVISED 



Department: 



U 



Item: 



Grant Amounts: 



Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SEP 1 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department of Public Works (DPW), Bureau of Architecture 
Department of Public Health (DPH): 

Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 
Fire Department 

Resolution authorizing DPW to accept and expend four new 
Federal Hazard Mitigation grants and waiving indirect 
costs. 

Laguna Honda Hospital-Boiler Plant $1,862,000 

San Francisco General Hospital-Service Bldg. 1,400,000 

Fire Department: 

Emergency Generators 500,000 

Station Renovations 1.209.500 

Total $4,971,500 

Beginning 60 days from acceptance of the grant and ending 
36 months from acceptance of the grant, or a 34 month 
period. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through 
the California State Office of Emergency Services 

In October, 1990, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to apply for Hazard 
Mitigation Grant funding from the FEMA for City projects to 
mitigate against future hazards due to earthquakes (File 133- 
90-2). The CAO submitted an application for various projects 
totalling $17,739,789 which included the four projects that are 
the subject of the proposed legislation. 

LHHRoilpr Plant 

The LHH Boiler Plant was built in 1926 and does not meet 
current seismic standards. The proposed hazard mitigation 
retrofitting of this building would include bracing and 
anchoring of utility pipes for steam, gas, water and 
electricity, the bracing and anchoring of two 150,000 gallon 
water tanks located on the hill above the hospital, 
construction of a second, emergency alternate water supply 
line from the tanks to the hospital buildings and anchoring of 
main utility pipes between hospital buildings. These 
improvements will assure the ability of the LHH to continue 
to provide services after a major earthquake. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



Project Budget: 



SFGH Service Building 

The SFGH Service Building distributes all utilities (heat, 
power, water and medical gases) to all SFGH buildings. 
Changes in State regulations regarding construction of 
hospitals currently exceed the 1967 Uniform Building Code 
requirements that were followed in constructing the SFGH 
Service Building in 1972. The Service Building would be 
structurally reinforced to meet the current State 
requirements and to withstand a major earthquake. The 
piping, conduits and ducting that distributes these utilities to 
the various hospital buildings would be seismically anchored 
and braced. The proposed grant would also fund construction 
of a new water storage tank that would contain sufficient 
water to supply the steam driven power plant for one day. 

Fire Department Fhnftrgfmcv Generators 

The proposed grant for emergency generators for the Fire 
Department would allow for the installation of emergency 
generators for 20 fire stations that do not currently have 
emergency generators. After an earthquake, the emergency 
generators would keep communications equipment fully 
operational and would provide power for all station functions 
(after the Loma Prieta earthquake, numerous neighborhood 
residents gathered at the fire stations). The installation 
would include the purchase of diesel generators having fuel 
tanks with a three day capacity, installation on a concrete 
base, construction of a weatherproof enclosure for the 
generators and corresponding wiring and switches to 
connect the generators to the stations. 

Fire Department Station Renovations 

The proposed grant for the renovation of six fire stations 
would provide for construction to reinforce the structural 
integrity of buildings housing Stations 11, 15, 21, 35 (Arson 
Task Force), 38 and the Ashbury Tank House. 

The Bureau of Architecture estimates the costs for the four 
projects as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



LHH - Boiler Plant 



Construction 
Preliminary Planning 
Design and Engineering 
Project Administration 
Inspections 
Permits and Testing 
Contingencies 

Project Total 

SFGH - Servire BnilHinf 



Construction 

Construction Management 
Design and Constr. Admin. 
Project Management 
Inspections 
Permits and Testing 
Contingencies 

Project Total 

Fire Dept - 20 Generators 



Generators & Construction 
Construction Management 
Design 
Contingencies 

Project Total 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


$1,689,464 


$949,527 


$2,638,991 





28,200 


28,200 


145,600 


307,500 


453,100 


26,936 


42,953 


69,889 





160,538 


160,538 





66,170 


66,170 





307.112 


307.112 



$1,862,000 $1,862,000 $3,724,000 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


1,400,000 


$378,000 $1,778,000 





85,000 


85,000 





376,000 


376,000 





67,000 


67,000 





85,000 


85,000 





140,000 


140,000 





269.000 


269.000 



$1,400,000 $1,400,000 $2,800,000 



FEMA 
Grant 

$418,800* 





Q 



City 



Project 
Total 



$249,200 $668,000* 

51,400 51,400 

51,400 51,400 

66.800 66.800 



$418,800* $418,800 $837,600" 



*Based on the Bureau of Engineering's preliminary estimate 
of $837,600 for this project, FEMA would grant only half or 
$418,800 of the estimated cost (FEMA requires a 100 percent 
match). The Fire Department recommends that the 
legislation be amended to state the grant amount as "up to 
$500,000" instead of the amount of "$500,000" that was 
included in the original grant application, in case there are 
any cost overruns on the project and the full $500,000 in 
FEMA funding can be justified. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



FEMA 


City 


Project 


Grant 


Costs 


Total 


1,209,500 $2,263,500 $3,473,000 





104,000 


104,000 





485,000 


485,000 





208,000 


208,000 





68,000 


68,000 





71,000 


71,000 





436.500 


436,500 



Required Match: 



Fire Dept - Station R enovations 



Construction 

Project Management 

Design and Engineering 

Constr. Mgmt. & Insp. 

Programming & Planning 

Permits 

Contingencies 

Project Total $1,209,500 $3,636,000 $4,845,500 

Grand Total -Four Projects $4,890,300 $73 16,800$ 12,207,100 

100 percent of FEMA funding. All of the above projects except 
for the Fire Department Emergency Generators meet the 
match requirement. As noted above, an amendment to the 
proposed legislation will bring the Emergency Generator 
project into agreement with the 100 percent FEMA matching 
rule. 

Not allowed by FEMA. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
would authorize DPW to waive indirect costs. 

1. Although the Disability Access Checklist and the 
Summary of Grant Request forms are not in the file as of the 
writing of this report, Mr. John Sucich of the CAO's Office 
indicates that these forms will be added to the file before the 
Finance Committee meeting. 

2. Currently the four projects are still in the design phase 
and have not progressed to the bidding phase. Therefore, the 
proposed grant amounts for construction totalling $4,798,964 
($l,689,464+$l,400,000+$500,000+$l,209,500) should be 
reserved pending selection of the construction contractors 
and determination of the contractors' Minority Business 
Enterprise or Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) 
status. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve a total of 
$4,798,964 for construction contracts as follows: 

LHH Boiler Plant $1,689,464 

SFGH Service Building 1,400,000 

Fire Department Emergency Generators 500,000 

Fire Department Station Renovations 1.209.500 

Total $4,798,964 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 9, 1992 



2. Amend the proposed resolution to state that the FEMA 
grant amount for the Fire Department Emergency 
Generators is "up to $500,000". 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



1.1-5 
^ 

C A L E N D A R — /fcT;oV? M*/ 

SPECIAL MEETING OF 

TTNANCE COMMITTEE 

^OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 - 11:00 A.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 252-92-3 . [Indemnification Agreement] Resolution authorizing the Mayor to 
execute an agreement with local investors whereby the City would indemnify local 
investors against their liability for claims arising out of their participation in 
attempting to purchase and retain in San Francisco the Giants franchise. (Supervisor 
Maher) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title (as presented by Supervisor 
Maher) adopted. Recommended as amended. (To Board for consideration 
on September 14, 1992) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 17 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



F 

b 



CITY AND COUNTY 




tic Library, "Documents (De.pt. 
I of^an F^q^p g erF y %gtfi 



BOARD OF ^UPERVI 



DOCUMFNTS DEPT. 

SEP 15 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST 

SAN FRANCISCO 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 11, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget 

SUBJECT: September 14, 1992 Special Finance Committee Meeting 



Jget Ajialyst/fe^i^^^ 



Item 1 - File 252-92-3 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement 
with local investors whereby the City would indemnify local investors against their 
liability for claims arising out of their participation in attempting to purchase and 
retain the Giants franchise in San Francisco. 

The proposed resolution, if approved by the Board of Supervisors, would 
authorize the Mayor to execute a separate agreement by which the City and County 
of San Francisco would indemnify, hold harmless and thereby limit the liability of 
the local investors arising out of their efforts in response to the Mayor's request to 
assist in putting together a group of investors that would purchase and retain the 
Giants franchise in San Francisco. 

Furthermore, according to the proposed resolution, the rules adopted by 
Major League Baseball require that any investors seeking to purchase a baseball 
franchise agree to indemnify Major League Baseball from any and all liability 
arising out of the purchase of the franchise by such investors. The proposed 
resolution would therefore also indemnify Major League Baseball against all claims 
by the City assuming such liability. In other words, instead of the San Francisco 
investors indemnifying Major League Baseball, the proposed legislation would 
effectively transfer to the City indemnification for both the local investors and Major 
League Baseball. 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 14, 1992 

Mr. Ken Taymor of the City Attorney's Office reports that an Amendment of 
the Whole to the proposed resolution will be presented at the September 14, 1992 
Special Finance Committee Meeting. This Amendment will include a draft 
indemnification agreement, which would be included as an attachment to the 
proposed resolution. 

Comments 

1. According to Ms. Louise Renne, the City Attorney, Major League Baseball 
requires that the purchaser and seller of a Major League franchise agree to 
indemnify the Major League from all claims, including reasonable attorney's fees, 
before the Major League will consider approving the sale or transfer of a franchise. 
Ms. Renne states that both the Giants and the St. Petersburg investors have agreed 
to indemnify the Major League from all liability arising from that sale. Before San 
Francisco's investors can present their offer to Major League Baseball, an 
indemnification agreement must be provided. The proposed resolution would 
authorize the Mayor to agree on behalf of the City to indemnify the investors from 
any liability arising out of their activities in connection with the local investors 
purchase of the San Francisco Giants franchise. 

2. Ms. Renne reports that the St. Petersburg City Council has reportedly 
approved a resolution agreeing not to sue the Major League. A copy of the resolution 
was not available, so that the specifics of such an agreement are not known. If, as 
has also been reported, the St. Petersburg investors have agreed to indemnify the 
Giants against a potential lawsuit and the City of St. Petersburg has agreed not to 
sue Major League Baseball, Ms. Renne believes there is a minimum of risk for the 
City of San Francisco to indemnify the San Francisco investors for liabilities 
incurred by the Major League. However, Ms. Renne cannot estimate the amount of 
legal costs or the amount of a potential judgment that the City could potentially 
incur, if such a suit were filed against the Major League. 

3. Under the proposed indemnity agreement, the City could also potentially 
incur legal costs and a potential judgment against the City, on behalf of the local 
investors. According to Mr. Buck Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office, such a 
lawsuit would be handled through the City Attorney's Office, by reallocating 
existing legal staff and assignments. Ms. Renne reports that it is impossible to 
determine the precise legal expenses or number of attorney hours that would be 
incurred by the City for such an endeavor. In addition to the City Attorney legal 
services that would be provided, Ms. Renne indicates that she has received 
commitments worth over $1.0 million from several major San Francisco law firms 
for pro bono legal services to assist the City Attorney in defending the City and the 
investors against such a lawsuit. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 14, 1992 

4. Ms. Renne reports that the City would likely win any such lawsuit against 
the City or the San Francisco investors, such that the City should not incur any 
additional costs of a settlement or judgment. However, in response to the Budget 
Analyst's inquiries regarding what the potential financial exposure would be if the 
City were to lose such a case, Ms. Renne indicates that it is not possible to 
determine. Any costs that the City would incur, including legal fees, would be 
General Fund expenses. 

5. Mr. Douglas Comstock of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods 
informed the Budget Analyst that on September 14, 1992 an application for a 
temporary restraining order will be filed against the City seeking an order 
restraining the Board of Supervisors from exceeding their authority to use public 
funds for private investment. Ms. Renne reports that she does not believe that the 
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods has a viable case against the City. Ms. 
Renne indicates that the City Attorney's Office will provide the Board of 
Supervisors with a list of some prior indemnification authorizations by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

6. Mr. Delventhal referred to two court decisions relevant to the proposed 
indemnity. According to Mr. Delventhal, the first case, which involved an investor 
group trying to purchase the National Basketball Association's (NBA) Chicago Bulls 
for $3.3 million in 1972, provides a convincing precedent for San Francisco. Another 
investor group offered $3.8 million, or $500,000 more. The owners of the Chicago 
Bulls presented the first purchase offer to the NBA, which, like Major League 
Baseball, must approve team franchise purchases and transfers. The NBA declined 
to approve the sale of the franchise. Subsequently, the NBA approved the sale of the 
Chicago Bulls to the second group. The first group sued the NBA, the original owner 
of the Bulls and the second group for interference with their contract. In 1987, the 
Federal Appeals Court threw out this suit, stating that the original owner had 
fulfilled his obligation by presenting the offer to the NBA and that the first group 
had no legal right to expect that their contract could be fulfilled without approval of 
the NBA. 

7. The second case, involved Pennzoil and Texaco 's offers to purchase Getty 
Oil. Mr. Delventhal informs the Budget Analyst that this case is not directly 
relevant to the sale of the Major League Giants Franchise. Pennzoil offered to 
purchase a portion of Getty Oil. Texaco subsequently offered an increased price for 
Getty Oil. The owners of Getty Oil, prior to agreeing to the sale with Texaco, 
demanded an indemnity agreement from Texaco in order to protect Getty Oil from 
potential liability. Texaco provided such indemnity and the sale was approved. 
Pennzoil subsequently sued over interference with their contract with Getty Oil and 
used the indemnity agreement as evidence in their suit. A judgment of $3 billion, 
which was later reduced to approximately $1 billion, was awarded to Pennzoil. 
According to Mr. Delventhal, the contract of sale between Pennzoil and Getty Oil 
was not conditioned upon approval by a separate entity, such as the NBA or Major 
League Baseball. The Major League Baseball rules make the sale of a franchise 
subject to the approval of baseball owners. According to Mr. Delventhal, other 
entities interested in purchasing a Major League franchise are privileged to present 
their proposals to Major League Baseball owners. Mr. Delventhal reports that such 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 14, 1992 

conduct does not interfere with contract relations and is distinct from the Pennzoil 
case. 

8. The Budget Analyst has inquired as to how the City can indemnify an as 
yet unknown, or unidentified group of investors. Although the Mayor's Office and 
the City Attorney's Office have been working with the various local investors on the 
proposed indemnification, the identity of all of the individual investors, to date, has 
not been publicly disclosed. All of the individual investors will not be identified prior 
to the Board of Supervisors approving the proposed indemnity legislation. 

9. Furthermore, the Budget Analyst inquired regarding the local investors' 
offer that is being proposed. The Budget Analyst is concerned whether provisions of 
the proposed offer could potentially affect the City's liability. The City Attorney's 
Office reports that the specifics of the offer will not be disclosed prior to the 
September 14, 1992 Finance Committee or Board of Supervisors meeting. According 
to Mr. Delventhal, the terms of the offer will not affect the liability issues. 

10. Mr. Taymor provided a preliminary draft of the indemnification 
agreement between the City and the San Francisco investors to the Budget 
Analyst's Office. This draft agreement contains limitations which would restrict the 
obligations of the City to indemnify the local investors. Some of the specific 
provisions are: (1) this agreement would not indemnify investors for legal services or 
fees provided by legal counsel, other than the City Attorney's Office, without the 
approval of the Board of Supervisors; (2) the proposed agreement would limit the 
indemnity period until either (a) notification by the Mayor that the City no longer 
requires assistance to purchase the Giants franchise or (b) some or all of the 
indemnified persons acquire an interest in the Giants franchise; (3) each 
indemnified person and each indemnified person's counsel must provide a 
Representation Letter indicating that they have acted at the Mayor's request to 
present a proposal to the Major League and that they have not discussed the 
purchase with Mr. Bob Lurie or other agents of the Giants or with other team 
owners without the Mayor's knowledge; and (4) this agreement will not indemnify 
for losses from claims from among the indemnified investors themselves. 

As of the writing of this report, Mr. Taymor reports that the investors' counsel have 
agreed with the proposed draft provisions. A final version of the indemnification 
agreement will be presented to the Finance Committee on September 14, 1992. 

11. According to Mr. Jim Lazarus of the Mayor's Office, if the Board of 
Supervisors does not approve the proposed resolution to agree to indemnify the 
investors against any and all claims arising from their efforts to purchase and 
retain the Giants franchise in San Francisco, the San Francisco investors will not 
offer to purchase the Giants. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 14, 1992 

12. The Budget Analyst is unable to determine the likely amount of any 
potential claim against investors contemplating the purchase of the San Francisco 
Giants. However, if such a lawsuit is filed, the amount of damages claimed is likely 
to be substantial. In such an event, according to the City Attorney, the costs of 
defending the investors would be handled by the City Attorney's Office, with 
potential pro bono assistance from outside counsel, unless separate approval for 
outside legal counsel is received from the Board of Supervisors. In the opinion of the 
City Attorney, it is likely that the City would successfully defend the investors and 
therefore not face the prospect of paying a large award. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed resolution to indemnify local investors against 
liability for claims arising from their participation in attempting to purchase and 
retain the Giants in San Francisco is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



M 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



L D oCUMFNTS OEPT. 

)X c SE p &2A992 *\ 

^'^ ANCISCO tALENDA R ^Acho/OsT^*/ 

f-3 PUBLIC LlBBA MEETING OF 

i / _ -^FINANCE COMMITTEE 

'/ U °ld -^^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

■•-» /. ' / 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



CONSENT CALENDAR 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 25-92-29 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that uniformed security services can be practically 
performed for the Public Utilities Commission by a private contractor for a 
lower cost than similar work services performed by City and County 
employees. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(b) File 25-92-30 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that maintenance services for facilities of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic can be practically performed by private 
contractor for lower cost than similar work services performed by City and 
County employees. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(c) File 25-92-31 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that security services for facilities of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic can be practically performed by private 
contractor for lower cost than similar work services performed by City and 
County employees. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(d) File 146-92-66 . [Grant - State Fund] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, to apply for a grant of 
$630,399, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $30,580, based on 
twenty percent of salaries from the Federal Bureau of Health Care Delivery 
Assistance, for linked primary care and substance abuse services; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(e) File 133-92-3 . [Grant] Resolution authorizing the Chief Administrative 
Officer of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and 
expend up to $95,000 in Household Hazardous Waste Grant funding from the 
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CrWMB); waiving indirect 
costs. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, lines 3, 4 and 26, by deleting "accept and 

expend". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing the 
Chief Administrative Officer of the City and County of San 
Francisco to apply for up to $95,000 in Household Hazardous Waste 
Grant funding from the California Integrated Waste Management 
Board (CIWMB); waiving indirect costs." 



(f) File 133-92-4 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Chief 

Administrative Officer to apply for, accept and expend $1,341,000 from the 
Transportation Fund for clean air in the bay area for programs and projects to 
reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. (Supervisor Britt) 



ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 1, and on page 2, line 7, after "for", by 

deleting "accept, and expend", and adding "retroactively". Further 
amended on page 1, at the end of line 4, by adding "waiving indirect 
costs". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing the 
Chief Administrative Officer to apply for, retroactively, $1,341,000 
from the Transportation Fund for clean air in the Bay Area for 
programs and projects to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles; 
waiving indirect costs." 



(g) File 100-92-1.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Redevelopment Agency, in the amount of $186,330, for the operation of the 
Agency's Central Records function. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: Release of $186,330 recommended. Filed. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 250-92-2 . [Youth Employment Program] Resolution urging the Mayor to urge 
the Public Utilities Commission to provide $500,000 for the funding of year round 
employment opportunities for African-American youth, Hispanic youth, and youth 
from the disadvantaged neighborhoods of the Mission, Western Addition and the 
Bayview-Hunters Point; urging the Redevelopment Agency to provide $1,000,000 for 
the funding of year round employment opportunities for African-American youth, 
Hispanic youth, and youth from the disadvantaged neighborhoods of the Mission, 
Western Addition and the Bayview-Hunters Point; urging the Mayor to urge the 
Airports Commission and the Port Commission to commit $1,000,000 each per year 
for the next five years to insure the continuing operation of a year-round Youth 
Employment Program; and urging the Housing Authority to redirect any and all funds 
that may be allocated for youth services to assist the City's Youth Employment 
Program. (Supervisors Gonzalez, Kennedy and Alioto) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

3. File 25-92-22 . [Contracting Out City Services - Police Department] Resolution 
concurring with the Controller's certification that janitorial services can be 
practically performed for San Francisco Police Department facilities by private 
contractor for lower cost than similar work services performed by City and County 
employees. (Police Department) 

(Cont'd from 9/9/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Tabled. 

4. File 101-91-82.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, in the amount of $42,711,000, for construction and 
construction contingencies of the Islais Creek Transport/Storage Facilities Contract 
"C"; (contractor, Shimmick Construction Co., Inc./Ohbayashi Corp. (J.V.). 
(Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $42,711,000 recommended. Filed. 

5. File 97-92-51 . [Tropical Hardwoods Contract Language Exemption] Ordinance 
amending Administrative Code by amending Section 121.5, which requires every 
contract to contain a statement urging companies not to import, purchase, obtain, or 
use for any purposes, any tropical hardwood or tropical hardwood product to exclude 
contracts with public entities for the provision of water or power. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



File 172-92-1 1 . [Tropical Hardwoods Waiver] Ordinance authorizing execution of 
the contract for the conveyance of water from the 1992 California Drought 
Emergency Water Bank; authorizing execution of the agreement for wheeling 
exchange water from San Luis Reservoir to City of San Francisco; and waiving 
requirement of Section 121.5(b) of the San Francisco Administrative Code that every 
contract shall contain a statement urging companies not to use tropical hardwoods or 
tropical hardwood products. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



7. File 172-92-12 . [Contract] Resolution approving the contract between the City and 
County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, and Health Management 
Systems, Inc., to provide retroactive claims reprocessing services. (Department of 
Public Health) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Approving the contract between the City and County of San Francisco, 
Department of Public Health, and Health Management Systems, Inc., to 
provide retroactive claims reprocessing services; ratifying action 
previously taken." 

8. File 172-92-13 . [Contract] Resolution approving the modification of the contract 
between the City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, and 
HHL Financial Services, Inc., to provide uncompensated care recovery services. 
(Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



F 



a> 



CITY AND COUNTY 




CPuBCic Library, "Documents <Dept. 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Supervisors sep 15 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
BUDGET ANALYST PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 14, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst f^ca^^c^A^to^s. 

SUBJECT: September 16, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 25-92-29 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 

Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification of 
costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) that 
certain services can continue to be practically performed by 
a private contractor for a lower cost than similar work 
performed by City employees. 



Uniformed Security Services 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
uniformed security services at the Municipal Railway's 
(MUNI) yards in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 





Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


Citv Operated Service Costs 






Salaries and Fringe Benefits 

Overhead 

Uniforms 


$1,344,411 

372,402 

15.000 


$1,629,195 

451,287 

15.000 


Total 


$1,731,813 


$2,095,482 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Comments: 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


812.599 


812.599 


$919,214 


$1,282,883 



Contracted Service Costs 
Estimated Savings 



1. Uniformed security services for the PUC at the MUNI 
yards were first certified as required by Charter Section 
8.300-1 in 1983-84 and have continued to be provided by an 
outside contractor since then. 

2. The PUC advises that Burns International is currently 
providing the uniformed security services under a month- 
to-month contract. The uniform security services were 
competitively bid by the PUC in June of 1992. Burns 
International was selected as the lowest qualified bidder. 
The PUC is in the process of awarding a two year contract 
to Burns International that would expire June 30,1994. The 
contract would include 5 one-year renewal options. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. Burns International is neither 
an MBE or WBE firm. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



09/09/92 16:06 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS -»-►-► HARVEY M ROSE B)004 



ATTACHMENT D 

CHARTER 8.300-1 (Proposition J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

Department: Public Utilities Commission Time Period: 1992-93 
Contract Services: Uniformed Security Services 

1) Who performed service prior to contracting out? 

These services have always been performed through an outside 
contract. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None. 

3) Explain disposition of employee 1f they were not laid off. 
N/A 

4) What percent of City employees' time 1s spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

N/A 

5) How long have the services been contracted out? 
Since 1975 (17 years). 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J Certification? 
1983-84 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE/Action 
Plan? 

They will conform with the PUC's and City's MBE/WBE plans. 



Michelle H1tt 

Assistant General Manager 

& Director of Finance 



Telephone: (415) 923-2560 



YA:l«s /7534b 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Item lb - File 25-92-30 



Department 
Proposed Action; 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Parking and Traffic, 
Parking Authority 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that certain services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar work performed by City employees. 



Facility Cleaning and Landscape Maintenance Services 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
cleaning and landscape maintenance services in fiscal year 
1992-93 would result in estimated savings as follows: 

City Operating Service Costs 

Salaries & Fringe Benefits $217,782 

Indirect Costs 145,948 

Operating Expenses 15000 

Total $378,730 

Contracted Service Cost 193.176 

Estimated Savings $185,554 

1. Cleaning and landscape maintenance services were first 
certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1985 and 
have been provided by an outside contractor since then. 

2. The Parking Authority is currently contracting on a 
month-to-month basis with Custodian Janitorial Services, a 
certified MBE firm. The Purchaser is in the process of 
issuing a competitive bid to acquire a permanent 
contractor. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Parking Authority's responses, including the MBE/WBE 
status of this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



09/09/92 16:05 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS --- HARVEY M ROSE @)003 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 
Departmen t PARKING AND TRAFFIC 

Contract Services CleamW a-nA l r>A a *„T> a Tna-tntpnanrp service contract 
Time Perio d July 1, 1992 -'June 30, 1993 neighborhood. 



for 



1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Service has been contracted out for over six years. Prior to that time, 
the Bureau of Street Cleaning and Urban Forestry performed work. . 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 

out? 

None, to my knowledge. 



3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

Re-assigned other responsibilities. 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

Unknown 

5) - How long have services been contracted out? 
Since May, 1985 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

1984/85 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

Current contractor is a minority-owned business. 



Lgj^lwt, 



Department Representative 

Lee Poteet, Senior Management Assistant 



(Type Name, Title) 
(415)554-9811 

Telephone 

cxlquesp j 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item lc -File 25-92-31 

Department Department of Parking and Traffic, 

Parking Authority 

Item: Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that 

security services for the Residential Permit Parking 
Program, at 370 Grove Street and the metered parking 
garage at 16th and Hoff Streets can be practically performed 
by a private contractor for lower cost than similar services 
performed by City and County employees. 



Servicesto 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Security services for the Residential Permit Parking 
Program's administrative offices located at 370 Grove Street 
and the metered parking garage at 16th and Hoff Streets. 

The Controller has determined that contracting security 
services for the Residential Permit Parking Program 
administrative offices and the metered parking garage at 
16th and Hoff Streets from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 would 
result in estimated savings as follows: 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


$222,149 

62.202 

$284,351 


$270,107 

75,630 

$345,737 


140.603 


140.603 


$143,748 


$205,134 



Citv Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 

Contracted Service Costs 

Estimated Savings 

Comments: 1. According to the Department of Parking and Traffic, these 

security services were first certified as required by Charter 
Section 8.300-1 in 1991. 

2. The Parking Authority is currently contracting with Burns 
International on a month-to-month basis for these security 
services. Burns International is neither an MBE or WBE 
firm. The Purchaser is in the process of issuing a 
competitive bid to acquire a permanent contractor. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Parking Authority's responses, including the MBE/WBE 
status of this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



09/09/92 16:05 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS ->-»-> HARVEY M ROSE El 002 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department Parking and Traffic 

Contract Services Security Services, Various Locati on 
Time Perio d 7/1/92 through 6/30/93 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

These services have not been performed before. Similar services for 
the Department have been done by the San Francisco Police Department 
on overtime when available. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 

out? 

None 



3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

The Department has no employees doing this currently. 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

None. 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

Never before by this department. 

In the process of being bid presently. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

This would be the second. 

•7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/W3E 
Action Plan? 

Services will be put to bid through the Purchasing Department 
under applicable ordinances. 




tittetz 



Department Representative 

Lee Poteet, Senior Management Assistant 



(Type Name, Title) 
(415) 554-9811 

Telephone 

cxlquesp j 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Item Id - File 146-92-66 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 

Project: 

Project 
Description: 



Budget 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Community Public Health Services (CPHS) 

Resolution authorizing the DPH to apply for a Federal grant, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $30,580 based 
on 20 percent of salaries and providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. 

$630,399 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Health Resources and Services Administration 

October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 

Primary Care/Addiction Linkage Treatment Services (PALS) 



The proposed grant would fund the fourth year of a four-year 
demonstration project to link primary health care to drug 
treatment and counseling. The project has three primary 
objectives: (1) to plan, implement and study the feasibility and 
outcomes of projects in which substance abuse and primary 
care services are co-located, (2) to study the impact on health 
outcomes when case management is provided in this context 
and (3) to provide training for medical and nursing staff, 
allied health staff, social workers and community based 
organizations on substance abuse, primary care, HrV 
disease, mental illness and the implications for service 
provision which occur because of the inter-relationship 
between these elements. Primary care and substance abuse 
services would be provided to project clients through the City- 
operated Tom Wadell Clime, Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and 
Bayview Hunter's Point Foundation. A staff training 
component would also be provided at the Haight Ashbury 
Free Clinic. Additionally, the University of California, San 
Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies would continue 
to serve as an evaluation consultant for the program. 



Personnel 


FTE 


Amoxint 


Project Coordinator 


1.0 


$51,548 


Medical Social Workers 


1.6 


70,574 


Registered Nurse 


0.5 


25,786 


Clerk 


0.2 


4.990 


Subtotal 




$152,898 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



No. of Persons 
to be Served 

Required Match: 

Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Fringe Benefits 
Total personnel 



FTE 



Amount 

42.811 



3.3 



$195,709 



Travel and Training 

Supplies 

Contractual 

Indirect Costs (20% of salaries) 

Total Grant Budget 



$1,500 

2,000 

400,610 

30.580 



$630,399 



360 clients 

None 

$30,580, based on an estimated 20 percent of salaries. 

1. Contracts with existing contractors would be renewed 
which includes the following: 

Bayview Hunters Point Foundation $153339 

Haight Ashbury Free Clinic 197,226 

UCSF Institute for Health Policy Studies 49.545 

Total Contracts $400,610 

2. The $1,500 budgeted for travel and training would fund the 
Project Coordinator to attend the Linkage Project conference 
in Washington D.C. 

3. The DPH advises that the Department will not retain the 
grant positions when funding for this project is terminated. 

4. DPH reports that the application for the Federal grant has 
already been submitted. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
provides for ratification of action previously taken. 

5. Attached is the Health Commission "Summary of Grant 
Request," as prepared by DPH for the proposed grant funds. 

6. A Disability Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD QF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Crs^.tor 


HHS-BHCDA 




Contact 


Person Kathleen 


Sample 


Add rcss 


12100 Parklawn 


Drive 




Rockville, M.D 


. 20857 



CPHS 



Division 
Section 

Jan Murphy 
Cont»ct Person 



Administration 



Telephone 554-2617 



Amount Requested S 630,399-00 Application Deadline 7/31/92 



Term: From ' lQ/1/92 To 9/30/93_ Notification Ejected 9/30/92 



Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



T. Item Pr^crlpiion; Request to (apply for) /ac/^e^jj^p^ a/^9^y)/(c»nD^uanony(a^p^ri^^t^ciyt^^0yy 
( c«ic .„****' — *) gr2nl ^ the amount of S 630. 399 .OO from the period of 1 0/ 1 /92 to -9/30/93 

to provide linked primary rare and substance abuse services. 

StTrPm?. rv ! C Ctxz^x-Saliyory. *~eA *&Arc~o£.\ >umW , prnp -a-^: "J^iocJ ud jtvn ia* ) 

This is the fourth year of the program which provides coordinated linkage between 

primary health care and substance abuse services in San Francisco. Approximately 200 
new clients and 160 continuing clients will receive primary care, substance abuse and" 
case management services. Training will be provided for 900 health professionals. 

TTT. Outcome </Qbirctivte: 

To improve access to care and health outcomes for IV drug users, reduce prevalance of 
IV drug use, reduce spread of HIV infection among IV drug users, and to raise awareness 
among health care providers of the importance of linking medical care, substance abuse 
and HIV services. 

TV. P.nVrte n£ Rfducti"P BI TfTT>ingTir.n nf Thr^r Fl'"tJS 

Reduction or termination of these funds would make it impossible to continue the 
project. 

V. Financial Tnformgtion: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Kto. Match Annrnved br 

Two Ycatj A jo 




Grant Amount 920,209 

Personnel 258,609 192,935 195,709 + 2,774 

Equipment 4,855 

•Contract Svc. 512,824 391,985 400,610 + 8,625 

Mat. & Supp. 46,200 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 
Facilities/Space 



Other 40,000 4,462 ,1,500 (2,962) 

Indirect Costs 51,721 30,489 30,580 91 



VT. 


P?T2 Pror-tcino 


(c 


MB 'rJ«oci.bc~r) 


V ' T T, 


^rcnnn.1 



F/T CSC 6 3 2.0 (1) 

?/T CSC .20 1-70 1-30 (-40) 



Contr2ciu2l 7.9 7.9 7.65 (-25) 

Source(s) of aon-j;r23t funding for salzries of CSC employees vrorkin; part-time on this £r2nt: 



Will °rant funded employees be ret2ined 2fler this jr2nt terminates? If so, Hotv? 
No. 



iJgU L CnMrnt.pl <:. r vj r .^. Open Bid Sole Source XX 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item le - File 133-92-3 



Department 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Program: 
Description: 



Budget 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Resolution authorizing the CAO to apply for, accept and 
expend a grant and waiving indirect costs. 

Up to $95,000 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 

Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program 

The Household Hazardous Waste CoDection Program is a 
joint effort between the CAO's Office and the Sanitary Fill 
Company that allows residents to properly dispose of their 
household hazardous waste (paint, motor oil, and pesticides.) 
Grant funds are awarded by the State to those counties that 
have implemented household hazardous waste collection 
programs. The proposed grant funds would reimburse the 
CAO's Office for public outreach and education expenses 
incurred as part of the City's Household Hazardous Waste 
Collection Program in fiscal year 1991-92. 



Postage for mailing information 
to all San Francisco residents 



$30,000 



Joint media campaign with other Bay Area 

counties to publish public service announcements 10,000 



Development of school curriculum 
for school year 1993-94 

Signs to indicate locations of used 
automotive oil recyclers 

City environmental booth for street fairs 

"Garbage Cans and Garbage Can'ts" brochure: 
Printing of 20,000 copies 
Translation into Chinese and Spanish 

Development of three transit shelter signs 
encouraging recycling of household hazardous 
wastes (two signs) and the use of alternative 
household products that are not toxic (one sign) 

Total 



10,000 



5,000 
2,000 



18,000 
10,000 



10.000 
$95,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Recommendation; 



Solid Waste Management Program requests that Indirect 
Costs be waived because grantor does not allow for such 
costs. 

1. The State awards the proposed grant funds on a formula 
based on the total population of the county. The proposed 
grant request is for "up to" $95,000 because, as of the writing 
of this report, the amount of funding available for San 
Francisco has not been finalized. Therefore, the apply for 
portion of the grant should be approved but the accept and 
expend clause should be deleted. 

2. According to Ms. Maria Trapalis-Baird of the Solid Waste 
Management Program, the grantor does not allow for 
indirect costs. The proposed resolution therefore requests 
authorization for the CAO to waive indirect costs on the 
proposed grant. ..:. 

3. The CAO's Solid Waste Management Program has 
prepared a Disability Access Checklist for the proposed 
grant. A copy of this checklist is included in the file. 

4. A copy of the Grant Summary Form prepared by the Solid 
Waste Management Program is attached. 

Amend the proposed resolution to delete the accept and 
expend authorizations because the actual amount of the 
grant has not yet been determined. Approve the proposed 
resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



' , „ . Attachm ent 

File Number Page 1 of 2 

Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department- Chief Administrative Officer, Solid Waste Management Program 

Contact Person: Maria Trapalis-Baird Telephone: 554-3444 

Project Title: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program 

Grant Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The Grant will be used on public education and outreach for the City's 
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program. The program is a joint 
effort between the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer and 
Sanitary Fill Company which allows San Francisco residents to properly 
manage their household hazardous waste. 

The money is awarded by the California Integrated Waste Management Board 
each year (this is the third year the program is in existance) to those 
counties that have implemented household hazardous waste collecrion 
programs. The grant is actually reimbursement for expenses incurred as 
part of the City's Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program in fiscal 
year 1991-92. 

The California Integrated Waste Management Board awards the grant on a 
formula based on the total population in the County. 



• Up to $9 5,000, 
Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $4 million for the entire State of Calif, 

Required Matching Funds: °__ 

Number of Positions Created and Funded: ° 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $70, 000 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? Y es 

Term of Grant: One year. 

Date Dept. Notified: August 19, 1992. 



Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Term of Grant 



One Year 



Date Department Notified of Available funds 
Application Due Date: September 25, 1992 



August 19, 199 2 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 




£-^4++- 



epa 



r tyfne' n t 



Head Approval 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item If - File 133-92-4 



Department 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 



Projects: 



Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Resolution authorizing the CAO to apply for, accept and 
expend $1,341,000 from the Transportation Fund for clean air 
in the Bay Area for programs and projects to reduce air 
pollution from motor vehicles. 

$1,341,000 

November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1994 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Transportation 
Fund for Clean Air 

Purchasing Department : Compressed Natural Gas Fueling 
Facility 

Recreation and Park Department : Alternative Fuel Shuttle 
Buses in Golden Gate Park 

Department of Parking and Traffic : 19th Avenue Signal 
Timing Project 

Department of Parking and Traffic : Electric 3-wheel Vehicles 
for Parking Enforcement 

State Assembly Bill 434 created the Transportation Fund for 
Clean Air in the Bay Area and provided authority to the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District to impose up to a 
$4.00 surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees within its 
jurisdiction to be used to implement transportation control 
measures included in the District's 1991 Bay Area Clean Air 
Plan. On October 16, 1992, the District approved a $2.00 
surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees and is seeking 
applications from Bay Area cities, counties, school districts, 
transit districts and other agencies to cover the costs of 
transportation programs and projects that achieve emission 
reductions from motor vehicles. 

The Purchasing Department, the Recreation and Park 
Department and the Department of Parking and Traffic have 
developed programs and projects eligible for AB 434 funding. 
The proposed grant application is being submitted by the 
CAO to submit one application for the City, instead of three 
separate ones for each department's project. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Project Amount 

Purchasing Department $500,000 

Construction of compressed natural gas 
(CNG) fueling facility by the Purchasing 
Department Central Shops to support the 
implementation of CNG vehicles within the 
City's fleet of vehicles. The proposed fueling 
station would be located at DPW's Army 
Street location. The proposed $500,000 would 
fund the following: 

1 150 CFM Compressor $90,000 
3 Storage Vessels 45,000 

2 Fastfill pumps 50,000 

3 Slowfill trees 50,000 
1 Dehydrator 25,000 

Other non-labor. 20,000 

Installation 220.000 

Total $500,000 



Recreation and Park Department 541,000 

Demonstration project of shuttle bus service 

to reduce vehicular traffic in Golden Gate 

Park. The proposed shuttle buses would be 

powered by CNG and a CNG fueling facility 

in the vicinity of the park would be 

constructed to support both the shuttle busses 

and other potential CNG vehicles in the 

Recreation and Park Department and other 

City departments. Funds would be used to 

convert four shuttle buses that would run on 

summer week-ends and holidays. 

The shuttle would run from UCSF parking 
ramp along the periphery of the east end of 
Golden Gate Park, stopping near Muni stops 
for pick-ups, and then proceed into the Music 
Concourse area of the park. 

The proposed shuttle bus project would 
receive $100,000 from the California Academy 
of Sciences and $5,000 from PG&E for a total 
of $646,000 ($541,000 from the proposed grant 
and $105,000 from other funding sources). 
The following is a breakdown of the proposed 
shuttle bus project: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Pnjfect ATwnpnf 



Refueling Station 




Engineering 


$30,000 


Construction 


375,000 


Educational Exhibit 


30,000 


Vehicle Conversions 




4 @ $6,000 


24,000 


Vehicle Operations 




(4 vehicles x 8 hrs/day x $24 hr x 


47 


days= $36,000) 




(Mileage 2,208 trips x 3 miles 




x $.60 = $4,000) 


40,000 


Parking Subsidy (100 spaces x 




47 days x $5.75) 


27,000 


Project Coordinator ($15 hr, 15% 




taxes & benefits x 695 hours) 


12,000 


Contingency 


50,000 


Project Administration 


58,000 



Total $646,000 

Department of Parking and Traffic 200,000 

Implementation of a signal timing project on 

19th Avenue by the Department of Parking 

and Traffic. This project would replace and 

repair damaged traffic signal 

interconnection conduit on 19th Avenue 

between Winston Drive and Junipero Serra 

Boulevard with the objective to synchronize 

traffic signals on this segment of 19th Avenue 

with other signals north of this segment. The 

proposed project would require replacement 

of approximately 4,000 feet of traffic signal 

interconnect conduit at a cost of $50 per linear 

foot. 

Department of Parking and Traffic 100,000 

Purchase of five electric 3-wheel vehicles to be 

used for parking regulation enforcement. 

These vehicles would replace five older 

gasoline powered 3-wheel vehicles. Each 3- 

wheel vehicle would cost approximately 

$20,000 which includes everything necessary 

to run the vehicle, including recharge 

equipment. 

Total Grant Amount $1,341,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Required Match: None 



No. of Persons 
Served: 

Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



Citywide 

Not permitted by the grantor. 

1. The application for the proposed grant was submitted on 
August 31, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to authorize the CAO to apply for the proposed 
grant retroactively. In addition, the departments have not 
received notification of the actual grant amount or which 
portions of the proposed grant would be funded. Thus, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to delete 
authorization to accept and expend the proposed grant. 

2. Details of the proposed grant funded projects, such as 
selection of contractor(s) to build the proposed fueling 
facilities, have not been finalized by the departments. 
Further, the fiscal impact on the City from the proposed 
projects (e.g. purchasing CNG vehicles and staff time to drive 
the proposed shuttle buses) has not been clearly defined. The 
departments report that such information will be provided to 
the Board of Supervisors when they request authorization to 
accept and expend the proposed grant funds. 

3. As noted above, the grantor is requesting that indirect costs 
be waived. However, the proposed legislation only includes 
language in the body of the proposed legislation and not in the 
title of the proposed legislation requesting that indirect costs 
be waived. As such, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to include language in the title requesting that 
indirect costs be waived. 

4. According to the Purchasing Department, in FY 1992-93 
the City intends to purchase one CNG pickup truck and at 
least two and up to 11 CNG vehicles through the vehicle 
replacement program (two vehicles definitely and up to nine 
more contingent on the construction of a fueling facility). In 
addition, the Purchasing Department reports that the 
Mayor's City automobile will be converted to CNG. Further, 
the Purchasing Department anticipates that at least 150 
existing City vehicles could be replaced with CNG vehicles 
over the next 3-5 years. 

5. The Recreation and Park Department estimates that the 
proposed shuttle service would reduce vehicle trips per day 
into Golden Gate Park by approximately 1,000. 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



6. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request Form as 
prepared by the CAO. 

7. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendations: Amend the proposed resolution to: 



1. Authorize the CAO to apply for the proposed grant 
retroactively. 

2. Delete authorization to accept and expend the proposed 
grant. 

3. Include language in the title requesting that indirect costs 
be waived. 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



iVeVn' "No. z — - Summ ary of Grant Renucst | Rev. 4/10/90] 

Bay Area A ir Quality District Division Chief Administrati ve Officer 

Contact Person Section 

Address . : L __ contact Person Fred Weixfer 



..Telephone 

Amount P» r .~t~l S 1> 341, 000 Application Deadline AugUSt 31 . 1992 

Term: • From NOV. 1, 1 992r Oct. 31, 1 994 Notlnc atlon Expected October. 1992 

Board of Supervisors! Finance Committee 

Full Doard ' 



I. Item Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
< Gi i^ it -*» pant in the amount of $1 341 ,000 from the period of 11-1-92 to 10-31-92 

to provide, reduce pollution from motor vehicles services 



IT. Summary; (Ox»oato«»y-..>mi.ddn=-od; «™*cr. t ro^».t»v«d;.a^cc. «ndp~<ifa») 

The grant would fund the construction of compressed natural gas fueling facilities, 
alternative fuel shuttle buses.. 19th Avenue signal project and tne purchase u£ f[^r 
electric 3-wheel vehicles. ■ • 



ITI. Ontcomes/Obtectives; 

Reduce emissions from motor vehicles in the City. 



TV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

One time funding to purchase equipment & capital projects. Reduction or termination 
would mean the City could not at this tune construct or .purchase- fueling tacllities, 
shuttle buses. 3-wheel vehicles, etc. 

V. Financial Information: 



Grant Amount 
Personnel 
Equipment 
•Contract Svc. 
Mat. & Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 



Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Reg. Match Approved by 

Two Years Ago Past Year/Orig. Proposed Change 

$1,341,000 



VI. Data Processing 



VTT. Personnel 

F/T CSC " N/A 

P/T CSC N/A 

Contractual 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

N/A : 1 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How"» 

. N/A 



- V IH . — Contrac tual Services: Open Bid Sole Source t*.^.<~«..»u«i,R*^o«fo.E ra puooF OT =) 



21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item lg -File 100-92-1.3 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Request to release reserved funds for the operation of the 

Agency's Central Records function. 

Amount: $186,330 

Description: During the FY 1992-93 budget review, the Board of 

Supervisors placed $186,330 or ten months funding on reserve 
for the SFRA's Central Records Function pending a 
submission of the Records Management Program Task 
Force's report to the Board of Supervisors. SFRA has 
submitted the Records Management Program Task Force's 
report to the Board of Supervisors and is requesting a release 
of the $186,330 on reserve. 

In January of 1992, the Budget Analyst submitted a 
Management Audit Report on the Redevelopment Agency 
which, among other findings, discussed that the SFRA's 
Records Retention program has not been evaluated since its 
formal inception and should be reevaluated by the SFRA 
Commission. The Budget Analyst recommended that the 
program be evaluated to determine whether it would be less 
expensive for the SFRA to contract out the microfilming of 
SFRA documents. In response to the Budget Analyst's 
recommendation, the SFRA assembled a Records 
Management Programs Task Force. This Task Force hired a 
records management consultant to evaluate the financial 
feasibility of contracting out the SFRA's microfilming 
services. 

The SFRA has submitted the consultant's report which found 
that, because the Agency's Records Retention program staff 
spend most of their time providing support services for the 
SFRA, it would be more costly to contract out microfilming 
services. According to the consultant, these tasks are directly 
related to the work of SFRA, and are not tasks that a 
microfilm service company could provide. The consultant 
estimated that contracting out would cost the SFRA an 
additional $11,725 annually. As such, the SFRA is requesting 
a release of the reserved $186,330 to continue to provide 
microfilming services in-house. 

Based on our review of the consultant's report, we concur 
with the consultant's finding that microfilming service 
should continue to be provided in-house. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Recommendation: Release the requested $186,330. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 2 - File 250-92-2 

Resolution urging the Mayor to urge the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
to provide $500,000 for the funding of year-round employment opportunities for 
African-American youth, Hispanic youth, and youth from the disadvantaged 
neighborhoods of the Mission, Western Addition and the Bayview-Hunters Point; 
urging the Redevelopment Agency to provide $1,000,000 for the funding of year- 
round employment opportunities for African-American youth, Hispanic youth 
and youth from the disadvantaged neighborhoods of the Mission, Western 
Addition and the Bayview-Hunters Point; urging the Mayor to urge the Airports 
Commission and the Port Commission to commit $1,000,000 each per year for the 
next five years to insure the continuing operation of a year-round Youth 
Employment Program; and urging the Housing Authority to redirect any and all 
funds that may be allocated for youth services to assist the City's Youth 
Employment Program. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation which urged the 
Mayor to establish a Youth Employment Program that would coordinate year- 
round employment services in the City (File 250-92-1). The proposed legislation 
would urge the Mayor to urge the above-noted City agencies to commit funds to 
this Program. 

nnmmpnts 

1. Mr. Tom Elzey of the PUC reports that while the Department is very 
supportive of the concept of a Youth Employment Program, due to the potential 
cuts the PUC will have to absorb as a result of the State budget cuts, the PUC is 
unable, at this time, to identify a source of funds in its current budget that could 
be allocated to the proposed Youth Employment Program. 

2. Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port advises that due to State budget cuts, 
the Port's $11 million reserve fund could be cut by approximately $8.3 million, 
which would jeopardize key Port projects which are underway. As such, Ms. 
Sanchez states that although the Port is supportive of efforts to establish a Youth 
Employment Program, the Port is unable, at this time, to identify funds within its 
current budget that could be used to support such a Program. 

3. Ms. Debra Whittle of the Housing Authority reports that the Housing 
Authority currently has one grant, which is earmarked for drug abuse prevention 
services for youth. Ms. Whittle advises that under the rules and regulations of the 
Housing Authority, there are no funds available in the Housing Authority's on- 
going operating budget which could be used to support the proposed Youth 
Employment Program. Ms. Whittle advises, however, that the Housing Authority 
would be willing to create Housing Authority jobs (i.e., clerical and maintenance) 
for youth, provided that funds outside of the Housing Authority could be identified 
to support such jobs. Ms. Whittle added that the Housing Authority would also be 
willing to seek additional grant monies that could be used for youth employment 
services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

4. Mr. Peter Nardoza of the Airport reports that under the Airport's 
agreement with the Aircraft Companies, the Airport can allocate 15 percent of 
concessionaire funds annually to the City's General Fund. Any other funds 
provided to the City must be used to pay for direct services. Mr. Nardoza advises 
that although the Airport considers the proposed Youth Employment Program to 
be important and is supportive of the idea conceptually, the Airport is not legally 
in a position to set aside funds for this Program without there being a specific 
program format that would define what type of direct services the Airport would 
pay for. Additionally, Mr. Nardoza noted that aside from a program format, other 
issues related to establishing a job's program, such as, addressing the concerns, 
if any, of the City's unions and determining what Civil Service requirements and 
regulations would apply, need to be taken under consideration. 

5. The Redevelopment Agency has allocated $1,000,000 to be used for the 
Youth Employment Program. Of the $1,000,000, $500,000 must be used for 
program services in the Western Addition and the remaining $500,000 must be 
used to support program services in the Bayview- Hunters Point. These funds 
cannot be used to fund program services in any other area of the City. The 
$1,000,000 has been placed on reserve pending the submission of a specific 
program plan for the Youth Employment Program (File 100-92-1.2). 

6. Mr. Patrick Lynch of the Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force reports 
that the Task Force will be responsible for developing a program format for the 
Youth Employment Program, as well as for the ongoing administering and 
monitoring of the Program. Mr. Lynch advises that he is in the process of 
developing the program format, and anticipates having a draft completed by the 
Finance Committee meeting on September 16, 1992. Mr. Lynch states that the 
Youth Employment Program will begin as a pilot program which will initially be 
funded by the $1,000,000 that has been allocated by the Redevelopment Agency. 



Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 3 - File 25-92-22 

Note: This item was continued at the September 9, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. The Finance Committee members had concerns regarding the 
provision of health insurance by the low bidders to their employees and 
payment of the prevailing wage. The contracts were rebid, but selection of 
the low bidder had not been finalized as of the September 9, 1992 meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Police Department 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) that 
certain services can continue to be practically performed by a 
private contractor for a lower cost than similar services 
performed by the City and County of San Francisco. 



Janitorial Services for all nine District Police stations, the 
Police Academy, the Pistol Range, the Juvenile Division, and 
the Golden Gate stables. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
janitorial services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 

Highest Lowest 

Salary Step Salary Step 



DPW Operated Costs 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Savings for Contracted 
Service Cost 



$740,230 
280.000 



$617315 

280.000 



$460,230 $337,815 



1. The above DPW Operated Cost estimate reflects amounts 
submitted by the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the 
Controller and certified by the Controller. The Contracted 
Service Cost estimate is based on the approximate lowest 
price bid received from the three janitorial contract bidders 
on July 27, 1992. 

2. DPW currently provides janitorial services to the Police 
Department. FY 1992-93 would be the first year that the Police 
Department would fully contract for these janitorial services. 

3. According to Officer Tom Strong, of the Police 
Department's Accounting Office, the Police Department 
continues to pay $33,796 to the Department of Public Works 
monthly for janitorial services from July 1, 1992 to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



present from the Police Department's FY 1992-93 Building 
and Repair budget. The Police Department continues to 
purchase janitorial services from DPW pending selection of 
the private contractors. Mr. Strong advises that a total of 
$280,000 has been budgeted for contracted janitorial services 
in the FY 1992-93 budget. The $67,592 used to provide 
janitorial services in July and August, as well as any 
amounts required to be expended pending selection of 
contractors, will be deducted from the $280,000 and returned 
to the Building and Repair account. The remaining balance 
will be used to pay for the contracted janitorial services. 

4. Mr. Steve Lutz, Senior Analyst of the Police Department's 
Planning Division, reports that the scope of janitorial 
services provided to the Police Department would eliminate 
the Hibernia Bank Building facility and add the Pistol Range. 
In addition, Mr. Lutz stated that the Police Department has 
not been satisfied with the level of service currently provided 
by DPW. As a result, Mr. Arnie Sowell of the Controller's 
Office reports that the 1992-93 proposed in-house versus 
contracted services represent a higher level of janitorial 
services than what has been historically provided. Mr. 
Raymond Zahndt of the Department of Public Works 
estimates that to provide the level of service the Police 
Department is now requesting, the Department of Public 
Works would have to expand their current staff level from 6 
FTE to 13 FTE. This increased level of service is reflected 
above in the DPW Operated Cost estimate and Contracted 
Service Cost estimate provided by the Controller's Office. 

5. The Finance Committee requested that the Controller 
estimate the costs of the Police Department providing these 
services directly by employing janitors. The Controller has 
determined that Police Department In-house Janitorial 
Services as compared with DPW Janitorial Services and 
contractual janitorial services are as follows: 



BOARD OF ST TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



Highest Lowest 

Salary Step Salary Step 



DPW Operated Costs 


$740,230 


$617,815 


Police Department In-House 
Janitorial Services 


726.344 


625,934 


Estimated Savings for Police vs. DPW 


$13386 




Janitorial Services 


($8,119) 


Police Department In-House 
Janitorial Services 


$726344 


$625,934 


Contracted Service Cost 


280.000 


280,000 


Rofimflted Savings for Contracted 


$44&344 




Service Cost vs. Police In-House 


£345-934 



Therefore, as noted above, it would be between $8,119 more 
expensive to $13,886 less expensive for the Police Department 
to directly provide its own janitorial services in 1992-93 rather 
than through DPW. However, as also noted above, it would be 
approximately $345,934 to $446,344 less expensive for the 
Police Department to contract out for janitorial services than 
to hire in-house janitors in the Police Department. As 
previously discussed, changing from the current DPW 
janitorial services to contractual janitorial services would 
result in an estimated 1992-93 annualized savings ranging 
from approximately $337,815 to $460,230. 

6. Mr. Carl Bunch of the Mayor's Office, Employee Relations 
Division, advises that the City of San Francisco does not have 
a duty to meet and confer with the Union regarding the 
contracting out of services before a decision is made unless 
layoffs will occur as a result of the decision. However, 
following a decision to contract out, the City does have an 
obligation to meet and confer with the Union regarding the 
impact of the decision on bargaining unit employees. The 
Service Employees International Union's (SEIU), 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also states that upon 
request by the Union and prior to the City making any final 
decision, the City will hold informational meetings with the 
Union to discuss and attempt to resolve issues relating to the 
contracting out of services. Mr. Bunch reports that there 
have been no requests for informational meetings from the 
Union. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

7. The Controller's Office notes that the proposed Proposition 
J certification must be approved prior to any contract for 
services being awarded. The Controller's supplemental 
questionnaire with the Department's responses, including 
MBE/WBE status, is attached. 

8. The Police Department has rejected all of the original bids 
and has asked the Purchasing Department to rebid the 
contracts for janitorial services (the janitorial services duties 
are to be split into two parts in order to allow two contractors 
to obtain City contracts). Mr. Ara Manasian of the 
Purchasing Department reports that the apparent low bidder 
(a single firm is the low bidder on both parts of the janitorial 
work) has been selected but, as of the writing of this report, 
the Purchasing Department must perform reference checks, 
must receive the Human Rights Commission's decision on 
the Local Business Enterprise status of the apparent low 
bidder and must" verify bonding and insurance apparent 
before the apparent low bidder can finally be named the true 
low bidder. Mr. George Mcintosh of IBS Building 
Maintenance company, the apparent low bidder, states that 
his company pays from $5.75 to $6.50 per hour and provides a 
health insurance option to his employees. The total 
annualized contract amount is $175,427, considerably less 
than the $280,000 contracted service cost estimated used by 
the Controller. 

9. If the apparent low bidder is awarded the janitorial 
contract for FY 1992-92 at an annualized rate of $175,427, this 
would result in estimated annual savings of $442,388 to 
$564,803 as compared with DPW's Annual Operating Costs. 
Even after paying DPW a total of $101,388 for janitorial 
services from July 1 through September 30, 1992, (three 
months at $33,796), the Police Department would still end the 
year with a surplus in their budget for janitorial services of 
$47,042 ($280,000 budgeted less $101,388 for DPW's costs for 
three months and $131,570 for nine months at the annual 
rate of $175,427). 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 4 - File 101-91-82.1 

Departments: 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Clean Water Program 

Request to release reserved funds for construction and 
construction contingencies for the Islais Creek 
Transport/Storage Facilities contract. 

$42,711,000 

1991 Sewer Revenue Bonds 

In June of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance for $65 million to fund 
construction for the Islais Creek Transport/Storage 
Facilities. The Board of Supervisors placed $61,930,000 
($56,300,000 construction contract and $5,630,000 for related 
contingencies) on reserve pending the selection of the 
contractors, MBE and/or WBE status of the contractors and 
finalized cost details. This is a request to release $42,711,000 
of the $61,930,000 placed on reserve. The construction of the 
Islais Creek Transport/Storage Facilities would permit the 
City to reduce the current sewage overflow into the bay at 
Islais Creek. 

Shimmick Construction Co., Inc./Obayashi Corp. Joint 
Venture (J.V.) submitted the lowest bid of $38,827,835. The 
remainder of the $42,711,000 request is $3,883,165 or ten 
percent of the construction cost, which would be utilized for 
construction contingencies. Shimmick Construction Co., 
IncVObayashi Corp. (J.V.) is neither a City certified MBE nor 
WBE firm. However, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) 
has approved the proposed contractor because Shimmick 
Construction Co., Inc./Obayashi Corp. (J.V.) has committed 
a minimum of 15 percent of the contract work to Minority 
Business Enterprise subcontractors and 3.5 percent to 
Woman Business Enterprise subcontractors. Therefore, 
Shimmick Construction Co., Inc./Obayashi Corp. (J.V.) is in 
compliance with the pre-award requirements (14 percent 
MBE goal and 3.3 percent WBE goal) as set forth under the 
HRC Affirmative Action program, State loan contract and 
Chapter 12B of the City's Administrative Code. 

Further, although Shimmick Construction Co., 
IncVObayashi Corp. (J.V.) had committed to 15 percent of the 
contract work to MBE or WBE firms, the actual subcontract 
amount to MBE/WBE firms is $7,226,396 or 18.6 percent of the 
$38,827,835 contract amount as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



; 


MBE/WBE 


Contract 


Comoanv 


Status 


Amount 


Avar Construction 


WBE 


$301,796 


A. Ruiz Construction 


MBE 


4,200,000 


Esquivel Grading & 






Paving 


MBE 


284,600 


Oliver Construction 


MBE 


48,000 


Vickers 


WBE 


17,000 


Nationwide Construe. 


WBE 


875,000 


Cathy's Trucking 


WBE 


200,000 


Big "J" Trucking 






(Truck Broker using 37 MBE 




trucking companies) 




1.300.000 



Total MBE/WBE Subcontracts $7,226,396 

Comments: 1. The actual contract amount of $42,711,000 is $19,219,000 

less than the Department's estimate of $61,930,000. 
According to Mr. Manfred Wong of the Clean Water 
Program, the $19 million difference is probably due to the 
current shrinking construction market which is making 
construction bids more competitive. 

2. Because the $61,930,000 was placed on reserve for the 
construction contract and that contract is $19,219,000 less 
than the $61,930,000 reserve, the $19,219,000 difference should 
remain on reserve. 

Recommendations: Release the requested $42,711,000. Continue to reserve the 
remaining $19,219,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



, Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Rem 5 - File 97-92-51 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Items: Ordinance amending Section 121.5 of tbe San Francisco 

Administrative Code, which requires every City contract to 
contain a statement urging the contractors not to import, 
purchase, obtain or use for any purposes, any tropical 
hardwood or tropical hardwood product to exclude City 
contracts with other public entities if such contracts are for 
the provision of water or power. 

Description: Section 121.5 of the Adniinistrative Code requires that every 

contract, without exception, contain a statement urging 
companies not to import, purchase, obtain, or use for any 
purpose, any tropical hardwood or tropical hardwood 
product. According to the PUC, public entities object to 
including policy statements in contracts which have not been 
adopted by and may not be consistent with the policies of their 
own governing bodies, and the constituencies which they 
represent. 

The proposed ordinance would provide that the requirement 
that a statement regarding tropical hardwoods be waived for 
contracts between the City and other public entities for the 
provision of water or power and related services. 

Comments: 1. According to Section 121.5 of the Administrative Code, the 

use of tropical hardwoods is undesirable because the 
deforestation of tropical rain forests causes: (1) global 
warming and atmospheric imbalances; (2) the displacement 
and death of indigenous peoples, and the destruction of the 
cultures of indigenous peoples; and (3) the endangerment or 
extinction of 30 species each day. 

2. According to the PUC, due to the drought, only a limited 
amount of water is available for purchase and a large 
number of entities are seeking to purchase any available 
supplies. The PUC advises that the requirement that a 
statement regarding tropical hardwoods be included in all 
contracts impedes the City in acquiring supplies of water. 

3. A proposed ordinance currently being considered by the 
Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors would 
authorize the Water Department to enter into an agreement 
to purchase water from the California Drought Emergency 
Water Bank. The California Department of Water Resources 
(DWP) controls the conveyance facilities for water from the 
Drought Emergency Water Bank. DWR will not sign 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

agreements to convey water to San Francisco as long as those 
agreements contain language pertaining to tropical 
hardwoods. Without these agreements, San Francisco cannot 
obtain water from the DWR, since such water must be 
conveyed through DWR's system of aqueducts and pump 
stations. (File 172-92-11) 

4. Mr. John Mullane of the Water Department advises that 
any contracts with other public entities that might be 
exempted from Section 121.5 would not use tropical hardwood 
products. 

5. Mr. Tom Berliner of the City Attorney's Office advises that 
the language of the ordinances pertaining to other policy 
statements, such as South Africa, the MacBride principals, 
and support for disadvantaged businesses has been 
interpreted by the City Attorney to exempt contracts with 
other public entities. According to Mr. Berliner, the language 
of Section 121.5 currently cannot be interpreted to exclude 
contracts with other public entities. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 6 -File 172-92-11 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Water Department 

Items: Ordinance authorizing execution of the contract for the 

conveyance of water from the 1992 California Drought 
Emergency Water Bank; authorizing execution of the 
agreement for wheeling exchange water from San Luis 
Reservoir to the City of San Francisco; and waiving the 
requirement of Section 121.5(b) of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code that every contract shall contain a 
statement urging companies not to use tropical hardwoods or 
tropical hardwood products. 

Description: Water storage for all of San Francisco's reservoirs, including 

Hetch Hetchy, is lower than it was at this time last year, the 
PUC advises. The PUC also advises that the water rationing 
program, which requires that San Franciscans reduce their 
water use by 25 percent, has been a success. According to the 
PUC, San Francisco customers have used less water than 
allocated. However, because of continuing drought 
conditions, the PUC is still unable to meet its water demands. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the PUC to enter 
into an agreement to purchase water from the California 
Drought Emergency Water Bank. Such water would be 
conveyed, or "wheeled," to San Francisco from the Kern 
County Water Agency using aqueducts and pump stations 
owned by the State. The total cost of the water and conveyance 
would be approximately $250 per acre foot. The PUC advises 
that the total cost for water would not exceed $1,750,000. 
Funds for such water are included in the Water 
Department's FY 1992-93 budget under Fixed Charges. 

Comments: 1. The California Department of Water Resources (DWP) 

controls the conveyance facilities for water from the Drought 
Emergency Water Bank. DWR will not sign agreements to 
convey water to San Francisco as long as those agreements 
contain language pertaining to tropical hardwoods, because 
a policy pertaining to tropical hardwoods has not been 
adopted by the DWP. Without these agreements San 
Francisco cannot obtain water, since such water must be 
conveyed through DWR's system of aqueducts and pump 
stations. 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



2. A proposed ordinance currently being considered by the 
Finance Committee (see Item 5 - File 97-92-51 of this report) of 
the Board of Supervisors would provide that the requirement 
that a statement regarding tropical hardwoods be waived for 
contracts between the City and other public entities for the 
provision of water or power and related services. (File 97-92- 
51). 

3. The proposed contract would have no effect on water rates, 
the PUC advises. 



Recommendation: 



1. Waiving the requirement that all City contracts with public 
entities shall contain a statement urging companies not to 
use tropical hardwoods or tropical hardwood products is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



2. Subject to the policy decision on this waiver, 
recommend approval of this proposed ordinance. 



we 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 7 - File 172-92-12 

Department Public Health 

Item: Resolution approving the contract between the City and 

County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health, and 
Health Management Systems, Inc., to provide retroactive 
claims reprocessing services. 

Description: The current retroactive claims reprocessing service provider, 

Health Management Systems, Inc., matches the names of 
individuals who have not paid their bills with an extensive 
database of individuals eligible to receive MediCal or 
MediCare, prior to classifying unpaid medical services bills 
as either charity care or unpaid debts to San Francisco 
General Hospital. 

The proposed resolution would approve a continuing contract 
between the Department of Public Health and Health 
Management Systems, Inc., to provide such retroactive 
claims reprocessing services. According to the proposed 
contract, Health Management Systems, Inc., would receive 
25 percent of funds recovered from MediCal and MediCare 
for retroactive claims. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Sharon Kennison of the DPH advises that in FY 1991- 

92, Health Management Systems, Inc. recovered $2.53 
million from MediCal and MediCare, of which $1.9 million, 
or 75 percent, accrued to the City, and $.63 million accrued to 
the contractor. 

2. Ms. Kennison advises that Health Management Systems, 
Inc. is recommended on a sole source basis, since the 
proposed resolution would authorize a two year extension of 
an existing one-year contract. Health Management Systems, 
Inc. has been providing retroactive claims reprocessing 
services to the City since 1986. 

3. The proposed contract period would be from July 1, 1992 to 
June 30, 1994. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to ratify action previously taken. 

4. According to Ms. Kennison, the retroactive claims 
reprocessing service contract was bid competitively in 1991, 
but no firms responded except Health Management Systems, 
Inc. Ms. Kennison reports that Health Management 
Systems, Inc. is recognized in California and nationally as 
the only firm providing retroactive claims reprocessing 
services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



5. Health Management Systems, Inc. is not an MBE/WBE 
firm. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to ratify action previously 
taken, and approve as amended. 



BOARD OF ST TPFRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 

Item 8 - File 172-92-13 

Department: Public Health (DPH) 

Items: Resolution approving the modification of the contract between 

the City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public 
Health, and HHL Financial Services, Inc., to provide 
uncompensated care recovery services. 

Description: The proposed resolution would approve a three-month 

extension from October 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 of 
an existing contract between the Department of Public Health 
and HHL Financial Services, Inc., to provide uncompensated 
care recovery services. HHL Financial Services currently 
assists individuals who have been referred by San Francisco 
General Hospital and who qualify for MediCal because they 
are indigent and have no other sponsorship (such as private 
health insurance); HHL Financial Services provides three 
field representatives who, for example, assist individuals to 
fill out MediCal forms or to gather documentation. Field 
representatives might also represent MediCal applicants in 
appeals if an application is denied. 

According to the proposed contract extension, HHL Financial 
Services would receive 25 percent of funds recovered from 
MediCal and MediCare for retroactive claims. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Sharon Kennison of the DPH advises that in FY 1991- 

92, HHL Financial Services recovered $3.3 million from 
MediCal through assisting individuals to qualify, of which 
$2,475,000, or 75 percent, accrued to the City, and $825,000 
accrued to the contractor. 

2. Ms. Kennison reports that the DPH is requesting an 
extension of the contract with HHL Financial Services since 
uncompensated care recovery services are currently being 
bid competitively. According to Ms. Kennison, bids are due in 
September 14, 1992. Uncompensated care recovery services 
were last bid competitively in 1990, Ms. Kennison reports. 

3. The current contract with HHL Financial Services expires 
September 30, 1992. Since the DPH would have insufficient 
time to select a contractor and receive approval from the 
Health Commission, the Civil Service Commission, and the 
Board of Supervisors before October 1, 1992, the DPH is 
requesting authorization to extend the current contract until 
December 31, 1992. 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 16, 1992 



4. HHL Financial Services is not an MBE/WBE firm. Ms. 
Kennison reports that the firm has shown a commitment to 
equal opportunity employment, in that HHL Financial 
Services has provided an excellent ethnic and multi-linguage 
workforce to serve the SFGH patient population. 

5. HHL Financial Services has been providing 
uncompensated care recovery services to the City since 1988. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution 




cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



l /rn Harvey M. Rose 

T 



39 



_ - PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING 

WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. 

/93 //// A + T, , D OCUM- 

C A L E N D A R -/fcT>o^laO^ 

SEP 2 8 1992 

SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING OF ~ A . . _ D 

=^FTNANCE COMMITTEE ^J Jf 

^=^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS rutsi_io Lib. 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 23. 1992 - 7:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 

2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



1. File 101-92-7 . Hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

( Changes which will reflect the City's budget as a result 
of the State budget cuts. ) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recessed to September 26, 1992, meeting. 

2. File 291-92-1 . Hearing to consider all special funds currently administered by the 
Controller. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Cont'd from 9/2/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 26, 1992, meeting. 

3. File 100-92-6 . Hearing to consider a review of the City's General Fund expenditures 
and policy on the use of city-owned employee cars. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 26, 1992, meeting. 

4. F ile 205-92-3 . Hearing to consider a "Voluntary Release" program for employees of 
the City and County of San Francisco as a cost saving item for this year's revised 
budget. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 26, 1992, meeting. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 2 8 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



5. File 161-92-4.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resubmission of the 
Redevelopment Agency Budget as approved as amended, as a condition of approval, 
to present the Agency's 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget to the Board of Supervisors, by 
September 1, 1992 for reconsideration in light of the fiscal impact to the Agency and 
City and County that may result from the final adoption of Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Budget for the State of California; companion measure to File 161-92-4. 
(Redevelopment Agency) 
(Cont'd from 9/9/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 26, 1992, meeting. 



(BaBCic Library , "Documents <Dept. 
mTAIj Qerry%gtk 

YAND COUNTY O F SAN FR AN C I S C O 




DOCUMFMTC nFPT 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEP 22 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

September 21, 1992 

/// 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: "Budget Analyst /(e <w*"<f£i> 

SUBJECT: September 23, 1992 Special Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 101-92-7 

This item is a hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriations Ordinance. 

The Budget Analyst will be submitting a report on the Mayor's revised 
budget to the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 1992. The Finance 
Committee will hold public hearings on September 26 and 30 and October 1, 
1992 to consider amendments to the 1992-93 budget (Annual Appropriations 
Ordinance and the Annual Salary Ordinance). Recommendations for such 
amendments are scheduled to be considered by the Board of Supervisors on 
October 5 and 13, 1992. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

Item 2 - File 291-92-1 

Note: This item was continued from the September 2, 1992 Finance Committee 

Meeting. 

This is a hearing to consider all special funds administered by the Controller. 

The attached August 31, 1992 report of the Controller provides information 
as to the City's Special Funds and the extent to which they may be available for 
transfer to the General Fund. The report also includes the Administrative Code 
sections which would have to be amended to effect transfer of each of these funds to 
the General Fund. 

The Budget Analyst is reviewing those funds with large fund balances as part 
of our review of the Mayor's proposed budget revisions. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

2 



Page 1 of A 

City and County of San Francisco Office of Controllei 




August 31, 1992 



Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 
235 City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Honorable Members: 

At the request of Supervisor Carole Migden, the Controller was 
requested to prepare a report of Special Funds in the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

Attached is a table which lists all funds on the books of the City, 
except funds set up for: 

- accounting convenience 

- capital/bond/grant projects 

- restricted trust, agency or gift funds 

The list is arranged in order by the city department primarily 
responsible for the operations of each fund. Also shown is the 
statutory authority creating the fund, its primary revenue source 
and the authority under which each fund may expend monies - by 
Board appropriation or continuing expenditure authority. 

Some of these funds, where their revenue sources are relatively 
stable and predictable are regularly included in the annual budget 
of the City. Funds with unstable or unpredictable sources are 
usually only appropriated when sufficient resources are available. 

Funds which have continuing expenditure authority are primarily 
those funds established to account for installation or inspection 
fees from the public for specific services performed. For example, 
DPW sewer installation fee deposits cover the cost of installing 
side sewers for property owners where the actual cost to install 
the sewer line cannot be determined until the work is completed. 
A deposit is received and the excess amount over cost is refunded. 
It would be quite cumbersome to have each deposit separately 
appropriated by the supplemental appropriation process. 



Atta chment 
Finance Committee Page ~7~oY~h 

August 31, 1992 



Supervisor Migden also requested information on the availability of 
special fund balances for possible transfer to the General Fund. 
The list shows few significant uncommitted resources available 
which could be used by the General Fund. For example, the Hotel 
Tax allocation formula contained in Municipal Code Section 515 
could be altered by the Board so that the War Memorial did not 
receive the 10 percent share of these revenues it currently enjoys. 
However, if this were to occur, it would severely impact the 
operations of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center. 

To comply with the Supervisor's request, where there appears to be 
no statutory bar to a transfer we have indicated that the fund 
could be reprogrammed even though there may be ongoing departmental 
operations and programs funded from the current special - fund 
allocation. We recommend further analysis of possible program or 
policy considerations before any transfers are recommended. 

There are differences between the cash balance at August 21 and 
available resources balance at June 30. These occur because of 
timing differences, transactions recorded between the two dates and 
the fact that resources may be received and obligations incurred 
which can affect fund balances independently of the receipt or 
disbursement of cash. Balances for cash and fund balance were 
shown to be responsive to your request however, they do not 
necessarily represent precise amounts which could possibly be 
transferred to the General Fund. 

I will be happy to provide whatever additional information you 
might find helpful . 



Very truly 




Edward Har 
Controller 



cc: Budget Analyst 



Spec 



oio,*|T|'He|S|«s|8|aa§j5qaq»aaaaa88 

s!sjs|s|sjs|g|g|g|g[g|8|g|g|g|g|sjg|g|^s|g|g|^g|g 



»3S5 psss 



OICgNMOl 




Attachment 
Page 3 ot 4 



ooooooooo 



o o o o o 



3 < o •* w w "^ - • • - 
> z i" 

< £ LU . ...... 




Attachment 
Page 5 of 4 




| list 
| ill! 

122III 

"8 8 g S gS 

I s i s s s 

• " < CD O Q 
CM CO Co CO CO co 



Z Z Z Z 
3 3 33 
2 2 22 



OJOjrsJCMCMCVCVCVCVC'jr-r'iCMCMOJCMfNJCVJ 

oooooooooocoooooooo 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-6 

Hearing to consider a review of the City's General Fund expenditures and 
policy on the use of City-owned employee cars. 

1. On August 4, 1992, the Budget Analyst issued a report showing estimated 
1991-92 and 1992-93 General Fund expenditures for automotive vehicles and 
related costs. In 1992-93, total costs are budgeted at $7,135,423, including 
$5,435,713 for emergency vehicles and $1,699,710 for non-emergency vehicles. 
These expenditures reflect costs for the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of 
vehicles, and also included $348,260 to reimburse City employees for the use of their 
private vehicles. 

2. Section 4.10-1 of the Administrative Code governs the assignment of City 
vehicles to City employees. It states that the Purchaser, with the approval of the 
Chief Administrative Officer, may assign a vehicle to a department head for use by 
the department for authorized purposes. 

3. Administrative Code Section 4.11 includes the following provisions 
concerning the use of City vehicles by City employees: 

• City vehicles shall be used "only in the discharge and transaction of 
municipal business." 

• Use of a City vehicle by a City employee must be authorized by the 
Department head. 

• Assignment of a vehicle to a specific employee by the Purchaser must be 
justified in writing by the head of the employee's Department and approved by the 
Chief Administrative Officer. 

• The use of City vehicles for travel to and from an employee's place of 
residence is prohibited except in limited circumstances involving work assignments 
before or after normal working hours. Exceptions are also made for Police, Sheriff, 
and Emergency Service Department employees who are authorized to use vehicles 
equipped with emergency equipment, subject to guidelines issued by the Chief of 
Police, Sheriff, and Director of Emergency Services. These Departments are 
required to maintain detailed records concerning the use of the emergency-equipped 
vehicles by departmental employees. 

4. Administrative Code Section 4.11 also provides that employees who violate 
these provisions shall pay a penalty. The penalty is an amount equal to 3 times the 
City's mileage reimbursement rate, times the number of miles travelled in violation 
of the statutory provisions. 

5. In discussions with the Controller's Office of Internal Audits, the 
Purchasing Department, and the Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Budget Analyst has 
been unable to determine that any enforcement mechanism exists to monitor the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

use of City vehicles by City employees, and the amount of any penalties which have 
been imposed for the unauthorized use of City vehicles. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

Item 4 - File 205-92-3 

1. This is a hearing to consider a "Voluntary Release" program for employees 
of the City and County of San Francisco as a cost saving item for this year's revised 
budget. 

2. A voluntary release program has been used in the County of Santa Clara 
for approximately ten years. Known as the Voluntary Reduced Work Hours 
Program, rules for operation of the Santa Clara program are established in 
memoranda of understanding with employee bargaining agreements. The purpose of 
the Program is to reduce work hours and a commensurate amount of pay on a 
voluntary basis. Key elements of the program are as follows: 

• Workers may elect a two and one-half percent (2 1/2%), five percent (5%), 
ten per cent (10%), or twenty percent (20%) reduction in pay for a 
commensurate amount of time off for a six (6) month period. Admission 
to the plan will be at six (6) month intervals - March and September. 
The parties shall meet and agree upon the beginning date for the 
Program. 

• All persons in the Program will revert to their former status at the end 
of six (6) months. If a worker transfers, promotes, demotes, terminates, 
or in any other way vacates or reduces his/her present code 
(classification), he/she will be removed from the Program for the balance 
of the six (6) month period. 

• Participation in this Program shall be my mutual agreement between 
the worker and the department/agency head. At no time will approval be 
given if it results in overtime. Restrictions by Department/Agencies 
within work units shall be uniformly applied. 

• It is understood by the County that due to this Program there may be 
lower levels of service. 

• All workers will be notified in writing regarding the Program specifics 
and the sign-up options. Such written notice to be mutually agreed upon 
by the parties. 

3. Approximately 500 of Santa Clara County's employees participate in this 
program (i.e. 3.4% of the total filled positions of approximately 14,800). The 
program is primarily viewed as an employee benefit, and employees must elect to 
participate in the program. Managers cannot unilaterally assign reduced work 
hours in order to reduce spending. Savings due to this program are not included in 
the Santa Clara Comity annual budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

Comments : 

1. The Mayor's proposed revisions to the 1992-93 budget include assumed 
savings from work furlough of certain employees in some of the departmental 
budgets that are to be reduced. The Budget Analyst is reviewing the Mayor's 
recommended revisions on a department-by-department basis and will issue a 
report on the recommended budget revisions on September 24, 1992. 

2. The Mayor's Employee Relations Division (ERD) is currently meeting and 
conferring with union representatives on work furlough issues and a proposed Civil 
Service rule change that would enable department appointing officers to furlough 
non-essential employees unilaterally in order to achieve required budget savings. 

3. At the direction of the Finance Committee, the Budget Analyst is currently 
reviewing potential savings that would become available from a City-wide 
application of work furlough on non-essential employees. We will report on this 
matter in our September 24 report on the Mayor's budget revision 
recommendations. 

4. The extent to which a Voluntary Release program would result in 
additional budgetary savings would depend on the number of employees who would 
participate in the program and resulting savings that could be achieved over and 
above current salary savings and work furlough savings now required in various 
departmental budgets. We therefore cannot estimate such savings at this time. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

Item 5 -File 161-92-4.1 

Note: This item was continued at the September 9, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

Department; San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Resubmission of the SFRA's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget to the 

Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992 for reconsideration 
in light of the fiscal impacts to the SFRA and to the City's 
General Fund that have resulted from the final adoption of 
the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget of the State of California. 

Description: During its review of the Redevelopment Agency's FY 1992-93 

budget in August of 1992, the Board of Supervisors amended 
the Agency's Budget to require the Agency to resubmit its 
budget to the Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992. The 
Board of Supervisors wanted to reconsider the Agency's 
budget when the impact on the City from the State budget 
reductions were known. This item was continued by the 
Finance Committee because the State budget had not been 
adopted. 

According to the SFRA, State legislation recently passed and 
signed by the Governor requires Redevelopment Agencies to 
pass through to the San Francisco Unified School District 
and the San Francisco Community College District 
approximately 16 percent of their 1990-91 tax increment 
revenues. However, the SFRA reports that there are 
currently varying interpretations as to whether this liability 
includes property taxes from Redevelopment Project Areas 
totalling $1,255,151 already paid to the Districts in FY 1990-91. 
According to the SFRA, if the liability does not include this 
amount, the SFRA will have to pay the San Francisco Unified 
School District and the San Francisco Community College 
District a total of $3,168,271. If this amount is reduced by 
$1,255,151 for the amounts already provided to these Districts, 
the remaining liability would be $1,913,120. According to Mr. 
Bob Gamble of the SFRA, the amount of either $3,168,271 or 
$1,913,120 represents a one-time obligation that the SFRA is 
required to pay in May of 1993. According to Mr. Gamble, a 
list of the Redevelopment Agencies' liabilities will be provided 
to the SFRA by the State's Director of Finance on October 1, 
1992. 

Mr. Gamble reports that the SFRA does not at this time know 
which budget reductions it will take to meet its obligation. As 
noted above, the SFRA has until May of 1993 to decide which 
spending reductions to make. However, Mr. Gamble advises 



BOARD OF SI TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 23, 1992 

that the SFRA will be making the necessary expenditure 
reductions sometime during October of 1992. 

In addition to the State's cuts, the Mayor's Office is 
requesting that the SFRA postpone half of its debt service 
from 1992-93 tax increment bonds or $2.5 million until FY 
1993-94. Approximately 87 percent of tax increment revenues 
used to repay tax increment bonds is General Fund monies. 
Thus, postponing half of its debt service would result in 
approximately $2.2 million in General Fund savings during 
FY 1992-93 and increase General Fund expenditures by 
approximately $2.2 million in FY 1993-94. 

Comments: 1. The proposed postponement of debt service payment would 

act as a no interest loan to the City to be repaid during FY 
1993-94. 

2. Because the proposed legislation is a reconsideration of the 
SFRA's 1992-93 budget and the Finance Committee is 
considering the Mayor's amendments to the other City 
departments' budgets on September 30 and October 1, 1992, 
the Budget Analyst recommends continuing the proposed 
legislation until that time. 

Recommendation; Continue the proposed legislation one week. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



SfO-35 



PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING 
WILL BEGIN AT 10:00 A.M. 



C 



ALENDAR - Mi** jak$W DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



RECESSED BUDGET MEETING OF 
^=^FINANCE COMMITTEE 
-ABOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



SEP 2 9 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DAY. SEPTEMBER 26. 1992 - 10:00 A.M. 



LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 
2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN - Items 3-5 

SUPERVISOR HALLINAN - Part of Item 1 and Item 2 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 101-92-7 . Hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 
(Recessed from 9/23/92) 

(Changes which will reflect the City's budget as a result 
of the State budget cuts. ) 

Departmental Budget Hearings 

Public Health 

87 Community Mental Health Services 

85 Laguna Honda Hospital 

83 Public Health Central Office 

86 San Francisco General Hospital 

Public Utilities Commission 

35 Municipal Railway 

40 Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

(PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL NOT BE LIMITED TO THOSE 
DEPARTMENTS LISTED ABOVE.) 

ACTION: Departmental hearings held. Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 
p.m. 



File 291-92-1 . Hearing to consider all special funds currently administered by the 
Controller. (Supervisor Migden) 
(Recessed from 9/23/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 

File 100-92-6 . Hearing to consider a review of the City's General Fund expenditures 
and policy on the use of city-owned employee cars. (Supervisor Hallinan) 
(Recessed from 9/23/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 

File 100-92-6.1 . Resolution (as presented by Supervisor Hallinan) 
prepared in Committee, entitled: "[Approval for Purchase of City 
Vehicles] Urging the Mayor to include in budget instructions to the 
various departments information regarding Board policy on procurement 
of vehicles and informing City departments that the Board will 
disapprove budget requests for authorization of procurements of vehicles 
for City departments absent a sufficient showing of need for said 
vehicle." Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 

File 97-92-57 . Ordinance (as presented by Supervisor Hallinan) prepared 
in Committee, entitled: "[Approval for Purchasing City Vehicles] 
Amending Chapter 21 of the Administrative Code by adding Sections 
21.18-4 and 21.18-5 to guide and limit the Purchaser's purchase, lease 
and other procurement of vehicles for use by officials and employees of 
departments of the City and County, requiring the procurement of the 
most economical vehicle available for that purpose and exempting mass 
transit vehicles." Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 

File 97-92-57.1 . DRAFT motion (as presented by Supervisor Hallinan) 
prepared in Committee, entitled: "Requiring return of cars owned or 
leased in violation of the Administrative Code and directing the Clerk of 
the Board to instruct the Controller to declare an offset against 
employees found to be in violation of Section 4.11b of the Administrative 
Code." Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. (DRAFT 
legislation to be sent to City Attorney for any necessary revisions.) 

File 205-92-3 . Hearing to consider a "Voluntary Release" program for employees of 
the City and County of San Francisco as a cost saving item for this year's revised 
budget. (Supervisor Hallinan) 
(Recessed from 9/23/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 



File 161-92-4.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resubmission of the 
Redevelopment Agency Budget as approved as amended, as a condition of approval, 
to present the Agency's 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget to the Board of Supervisors, by 
September 1, 1992 for reconsideration in light of the fiscal impact to the Agency and 
City and County that may result from the final adoption of Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Budget for the State of California; companion measure to File 161-92-4. 
(Redevelopment Agency) 

(Recessed from 9/23/92) 

ACTION: Recessed to September 30, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. 



f 



^Q,<kJ CITYANDCOUNTY ;| Jiji OF SAN FRANCISCO 




(public Library, (Documents (Dept. 
SVFB^: Qerry <Rptfi 



: ~j. yy ^il^ DOCUMFMT.q DEPT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0CT 01 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 



BUDGET ANALYST puBL|C L|BRARY 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 30, 1992 



Finar 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Gadget Analyst /)ecn^^ieAyJ^<r/vs 

SUBJECT: Illegal Sale of Lost or Stolen MUNI Transfers 

The subject of the illegal sale of lost or stolen MUNI transfers was 

.^discussed at the Finance Committee budget review meeting of Saturday, 

^September 26, 1992. The latest report on this matter was issued by the General 

Manager of the Public Utilities Commission on 11/15/91. A copy of that report is 

attached to this memo. 

Currently, Ms. Cathy Gilbert of the MUNI reports the following with 
respect to the illegal use of transfers: 

Revenue loss from actual reports of stolen transfers is estimated at 
$275,000 annually, not millions of dollars as has been previously 
estimated. 

Internal control of transfers has been dramatically improved. 

MUNI recommends against eliminating the use of transfers due to the 
grid route structure the MUNI system uses, which often requires that 
transfers be used. Eliminating transfers would effectively result in a 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



significant fare increase for some riders and not for others, which 
would ultimately generate requests to restructure the entire system so 
that transfers would not be required or would be greatly reduced. 



Harvey M. Rose 

Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SEP 29 '92 16=40 S.F. MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 



'<: 



San FRANCISCO municipal Railway 9»9 PRESiOiO AVENUE. S»n FRANCISCO. Cali? .~94'iS 415-6736864 ."■; _/ I . "; 



November 15, 1991 



The Honorable Jim Gonzale2 
Board of Supervisors 
City Hall, Room 235 
San Francisco, CA. 94102 



Through: C7^vr~+~ 

Thomas Ji Eizey 
General Manager. PUC 



Jtr Elzey V 



Dear Supervisor Gonzalez: 

I am writing in response to your request for information regarding Muni's 
policies on transfers and our efforts to discourage the illegal sale of lost 
or stolen transfers. I have attached a September 1990 report on the subject 
that was presented to the Board of Supervisors City Services Committee 
(Attachment A,). That report was the product of an interdepartmental task force 
convened to review Muni's policies; the task force included staff from Muni, 
PUC Finance, the police department (SFPD), the district attorney's office 
(SFDA,), the Mayor's office, and the Budget Analyst's office. 

We have recently reviewed the 1990 report and the recommendations generated by 
that investigation, and have taken additional steps to improve our control 
over the transfers. I am confident that we now better understand the magnitude 
of (the revenue loss related to the illegal sale of transfers, and that the 
loss is considerably lower than previous estimates. I am also confident that 
we are doing everything possible to minimize lost or stolen transfers. 

Below are the major issues and recommendations raised by the September 1990 
task force report, and improvements that have been made since then. 

Should Muni Eliminate Transfers? 

The task force addressed the fundamental issue regarding transfers: should 
they be eliminated, so that abuse is no longer an issue? While the members 
agreed that Muni should continue to encourage use of Fast Passes to obviate 
the need for transfers, they did not suggest that Muni do away with transfers. 
Within Muni, we have reached the same conclusion. 

Our current route network, which was restructured in the late 1970 's requires 
a significant amount of transferring. In m»ny cases these transfer trips are 
very short distances between crosstown/ reeder and radial lines. The route 
changes improved crosstown connections and resulted in a ridership increase of 
nearly 20\ on affected lines. If transfers were eliminated, the passengers who 
need to make more than one trip to get to the final destination would be 
charged more; since those are the very people who could argue that they have 
poorer service (requiring that they transfer), they could justifiably claim 
that, they are being made to suffer twice. A.s a result, passengers would demand 
that Muni provide more direct services in place of transfer trips. We have 
decided that the amount of fraud related to transfers does not merit changing 
our current route structure. 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 3 

SEP 29 '92 16:41 S.F. MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 
ltr. to Supervisor Gonzales 
page- 2 



Extent of Losses 

The task force reviewed the methodology for one estimate of revenue lost from 
illegal transfers, which pegged the loss at as much as $1 million annually. 
While concluding that the estimate was rough, the task force did not develop 
an alternate figure, and recommended that the survey undertaken for the 
Congestion Management Plan, include questions designed to evaluate transfer use. 

In the meantime, we have concluded that the revenue loss is more accurately 
estimated at about $65,280. Our figure was generated by tabulating police 
reports on stolen transfers with our own logs of lost or stolen transfers 
reported by Muni operators. We tabulated each transfer that was confiscated by 
the SFPD in September 1991 and then reported to Central Control as having been 
lost or stolen. In turn, we concluded that the loss associated with all of the 
transfers reported as missing by our operators in September, totalled 67 
incidents x 400 ea. (SO. 85 x 26,800 reported lost transfers x 12 months). On 
an annual basis, that generates a loss of 5273,360. 

This estimate of losses, which is substantially lower than the earlier $1 
million estimate, is supported by observations made by Muni managers. Because 
Muni's practices make it relatively easy to identify the driver who was issued 
any given transfer (see more below), and because drivers may be disciplined if 
a lost/stolen transfer is found and was' not reported to Central Control, most 
drivers are extremely careful to report any missing transfers immediately. 

Muni Transfer Path 

Muni's control of transfers is extremely tight, as exhibited in Attachment B, 
which details the procedure for handling transfers, from the time they are 
delivered from the Revenue unit until they are returned to that unit. For 
example, the transfers are numbered consecutively in a book, with 100 
transfers per book. The same transfer numbers are issued to a given run each 
day, making it extremely easy to track the transfers that go out on the 
initial daily runs. 

We have reexamined the entire process, and added measures to improve one of 
the weak points in the system. We are now deploying mid-day stand-by operators 
to collect transfers coming back from the late night runs and early A.M. peak 
period runs. We have also issued a new notice to drivers, Attachment C, 
reminding thera that transfer books not currently in use are always to be 
stored in. the locked box on the vehicle, and book in use is to be placed in 
locked box as well whenever the driver has to leave the vehicle. To ensure a 
higher degree of oa-board transfer security, MUNI will undertake a re-keying 
of all on-board locked transfer boxes and reissue to all appropriate operating 
personnel new keys. Each operator's identification number will be stamped on 
the locked box key and issued only to that operator. 

Finally, we have decreased the number of transfer books in circulation each 
day, to more closely approximate the number of transfers that are requested by 
riders, and reduce the risk of misplacing them. 



Attachment 

~SEF 29 '92 16:42 S.F. MUNICIPAL RAILWAY Pa.Pe 3 of 3 

ltr. to Supervisor Gonzales 
page 3 



SFPD Activity to Discourage Illegal Sales of Transfer? 

The SFPD regularly monitors some of the areas where lost or stolen transfers 
are sold, including the area around 16th and Mission Streets. At least 134 
people have been arrested or cited since January 1991, and several people have 
been arrested more than once. The police reports are given to Muni managers, 
vho check to see if the transfers found by the police were reported missing by 
the Muni operator. If not. Muni uses the serial number on the transfer to 
locate the driver who was given the transfer. The driver is then interviewed, 
and may be disciplined when warranted. While neither the police nor Muni 
expect to be able to completely eliminate transfer abuse, this program of 
enforcement certainly discourages some potential fraud. 

Future Plans 

As indicated above, Muni does not recommend eliminating transfers. He do, 
however, plan to continually review our internal system of checks and take 
additional measures whenever possible to tighten security from Muni's side. We 
will also continue to work with the SFPD and SFDA. to enlist their support in 
decreasing illegal sales of transfers. 

I would be happy to discuss any further questions or suggestions that you may 
have . 



Sincerely, 

6 &£_ 




Johnny Stein, General Manager 
Municipal Railway 

Att: A, B. 



9411P 







h 



CITY AND COUNTY 







OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 28, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst r\*co»\*\€*Ji£i*' i s 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 3 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



SUBJECT: San Francisco Zoological Society Management of the Zoo 

The Recreation and Park Department, in response to a request by the Mayor 
to reduce its General Fund support has proposed to reduce the Zoo budget by 
$190,000 as a result of savings from the transfer of the Zoo's management to the 
San Francisco Zoological Society. 

Attachment 1 to this memo is the Executive Summary to the San Francisco 
Zoological Society's proposal to manage the Zoo and Attachment 2 provides 
information as to the status of labor negotiations of the proposed transfer of the 
Zoo's management. 

The Department reported that 8 or 9 employees would have to be laid off at 
the Zoo to achieve the same $190,000 in savings. This estimate has subsequently 
been revised to 6 employees (see Attachment 3). 




7 '/^ 



Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 



Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kennedy 

Supervisor Maher 

Clerk of the Board 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Controller 

Kent Sims 

Jean Mariani 



Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



ALcaciiueiiL JL 
Page 1 ot 3 



SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS 
CONCEPTS OF EXPANDED PARTNERSHIP 

San Francisco Zoological Society/ Recreation and Park Commission 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

September 1, 1992 



THE NEED 

The Zoo is old and needs to be properly maintained and reb uilt :. General 
Fund expenditures were reduced by $845,000 this year, reducing the 
quality of animal care and level of public services. The Zoo needs more 
funding, not less, and the City is simply not able to meet these needs 
given its priorities. 

BACKGROUND 

In February the San Francisco Zoological Society was asked to consider 
expanding its 28-year-old lease agreement with the City to include 
management of the entire Zoo, to provide additional private funding to 
maintain and improve the Zoo, with fewer taxpayer dollars. The Society 
has 27,000 members, has raised $11.1 million far capital inprovements 
(1980-90), pr o vi des 44% of the Zoo's $12 million operating budget and 
employs 65% of the Zoo's 265 employees, maintaining union 
representation. The Society operates the Children's Zoo, Insect Zoo, 
Avian Conservation Center, education, visitor services, membership and 
development. Over 500 volunteers participate in Zoo activities. 

CONCEPTS OF PARTNERSHIP 

Most of the major zoos in the country are managed by non-profit support 
organ i zations . San Francisco would follow this model and shift those 
Zoo operations c ur re nt ly managed by the City to the Society as early as 
January 1993, developing a 5-year renewable lease agreement. 

* City retains ownership, Zoo remains under the Park Commission 

* Zoo Society given responsibility for operations 

* All current employees may: 

- remain Civil Service employees 

- elect to become Zoo Society employees 

- retain union representation 

* New positions become Society positions 

* Responsibilities to public ensure widest possible access, 
lowest possible cost, free days, free school groups, public 
participation in development of Zoo policy 

* Commission retains approval of admission fees, exhibit 
development, land use and review of annual budgets 



AEtacrtpenc i 
Page Z of 3 



BENEFITS 

The Expanded Partnership provides many benefits that simply cannot 
occur under City management: 

* taking care of animal needs without the lengthy delays 
imposed by the City process and lack of funds 

* providing animal care and maintenance staff to properly 
manage the Zoo, improve cleanliness and visitor services 

* decreasing City General Fund tax support, with substantial 
savings to the City of up to $6 million that could be 
allocated to other needs 

* increasing private contributions from the entire bay area (75% 
of Zoo visitors come from outside San Francisco) 

* developing the highest quality animal exhibits, education, 
visitor services and conservation pr ograms, raising the Zoo to 
first-rank nationally as an important civic asset and attraction 

FUNDING 

The City would provide a General Fund allocation of $4 million per year 
for the first 5-year term of the agreement, saving approximately $6 
m-minm. The subsidy would be provided as a combination of Civil 
Service salaries, Recreation and Park Dept. services and cash payment 
for services. The Zoological Society would raise a $10 million 
Founder's Fund from private sources to pay for transitional costs, new 
exhibit (xnstruction and endowment. The Society would assume operating 
costs for Zoo improvements and expansion and continue its capital 
campaign. 

SEQUENCE OF APPROVALS 

The Expanded Partnership Concepts have been approved by the Board of 
Directors of the San Francisco Zoological Society and the Recreation 
and Park Commission. The Board of Supervisors is being asked to support 
these concepts to indicate the support of the City for the partnership. 

After approval by the Board of Supervisors, the Recreation and Park 
Commission would develop a detailed lease agreement with the Zoological 
Society. The Zoological Society would secure ccamitments to the 
Founder's Fund. The final lease agreement will require approval of the 
Society, the Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. 

URGENCY 

The San Francisco Zoo has fallen short of its potential for many years. 
Its problems have been documented many times. The alternatives have 
been carefully studied. Even maintaining the status quo will result in 
an unacceptable decline in animal care. Without a long-term solution, 
we are endangering accreditation and licensing of the San Francisco 
Zoological Gardens. This public/private partnership gives the Zoo - 
and the community - the greatest opportunity for success in fulfilling 
our mission in education, recreation and conservation of wildlife. 



Page 3 of 3 



PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



The General Manager of the Recreation and Park Department will shortly 
formally transmit a proposed resolution and concepts for a shift in 
management of the Zoo, requesting support and approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The Concepts of Expanded Partnership are provided in this document for 
reference and study. They have been approved by the Recreation and Park 
Commission. The underlined amendments are the result of discussions 
with union representatives and represent the understandings reached on 
labor. issues affecting Civil Service employees. 

This item will come before the Board of Supervisors in the n ear future. 



Attachment I 
Page 1 ot 3 



LABCR AND THE EXPANDED PARTNERSHIP 

There are nine labor unions represented at the San Francisco Zoological 
Gardens. Teamsters Local 856 represents 49% of the union employees, 
Local 2 Hotel & Restaurant Employees represents 35% and SEIU represents 
7%. The Teamsters Local 856 has agreements with both the San Francisco 
Zoological Society (37 employees) and the Rec/Park animal keepers (38 
employees) representing the largest group of public and private sector 
employees combined. The Expanded Partnership agreement commits to three 
primary labor principles: retention of Civil Service status, union 
representation and continued employment. 

Many meetings have been held with labor leaders and employees in 
discussions of the Expanded Partnership concepts. The following labor 
issues have been raised and addressed with specific additional language 
and two amendments: 

* rights of Civil Service non-animal care employees to 

elect to become Society employees and remain at the Zoo, or to 
remain with the City and be re-assigned within the Recreation 
and Park Department as vacancies occur (I.A.6) 

* rights of Civil Service animal care employees, lacking transfer 
opp or tunities, may elect to become Society employees, or to 
remain Civil Service employees assigned to the Zoo (I. A. 7) 

* retention of Civil Service status in subsequent, agreements 
(I.A.7) 

* in the event of termination of lease agreement, hiring 

and re-hiring rights of Civil Service and non-Civil Service 
animal keepers (I.A.ll) 

We have further agreed to offer current employees the same jobs at the 
same pay, should they elect to become Society employees. 

We are committed to union representation and good fair negotiations on 
future agreement; existing labor agreements shall remain in effect 
until expiration. 

The Zoological Society and Teamster Local 856 have jn effect a letter 
stating "if additional employees are added to the Local 856 bargaining 
unit as a result of the consoHdat^on/partnership between the San 
Francisco Zoological Society and the San Francisco Zoo, your Union and 
the Society will negotiate to determine what Health and Welfare and 
Pension benefits will be applied to these new employees . " The Labor 
Agreement expires 1/20/95. 

The Zoological Society has an excellent record in labor relations with 
less than 30 grievances over 24 years, representing agreements with two 
unions and hundreds of employees, and no arbitration hearings. 



23 



Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 3 



SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS 
Union Representation at July 1 1992 



Teamsters Local 856 

Recreation and Park Department - Animal Keepers 38 
San Francisco Zoological Society - Animal Keepers, 

Rides & Admissions, Maintenance, Retail 37 

Teamsters Local 350, R/P Senior Keepers 3 

Teamsters Local 216, R/P Truck Driver 1 

Total Teamsters 79 



Local 2 Hotel & Restaurant. Employees 

Zoological Society Total Local 2 56 



SEIU Local 790 

R/P Dept. Head & Asst. Head Keepers 2 

R/P Dept. Custodians 5 

R/P Dept. Vendors 4 

Total SEED 11 



Laborers Local 261 

R/P Dept. Gardners Total Local 261 6 

Local 250 

R/P Dept. Hospital Workers 4 

R/P/Dept. Zoologists 2 

Total Local 250 6 

Local 38 Plumbers 1 

Local 377 Ironworkers 1 



Total Union Workers, 

San Francisco Zoological Gardens 161 



24 



^age 3 of 3 

EXPANDED PARTNERSHIP EMPLOYEE MEETINGS 
14 April 1992 1:00 PM All employees 
10:30AM Senior staff. 
1:00 PM All employees. 
5:00 PM Jt. Zoo Committee - public and staff. 



29 April 1992 

30 April 1992 
6 May 1992 
19 May 1992 



5:00 PM Special Jt . Zoo Committee - public and 
staff. 

2 June 1992 10:30AM Senior staff. 

3 June 1992 1:00 PM All employees 

3 June 1992 5:00 PM Jt . Zoo Committee - public and staff. 

15 June 1992 5:00 PM Special Jt. Zoo Commission - public 

and staff. 

18 June 1992 12:00PM Staff of Children's Zoo, ARC, Insect 

Zoo, Maintenance 

1 July 1992 5:00 PM Jt. Zoo Commission - public and staff 

comment on resolution 

6 July 1992 8:30 AM Administration and Public Service 

staff. 

15 July 1992 5:00 PM City and Society Teamster employees 

with their union representatives. 

19 July 1992 8:30 AM Visitor Services staff 

19 August 1992 2:00 PM Section Meeting, Keeper/AHT Staff 

20 August 1992 1:00 PM Section Meeting, Keeper Staff 

24 August 1992 1:00 PM Laborers (Gardeners) with their Union 

Representatives 

26 August 1992 1:00 PM SEIU (Custodians) with their Union 

Representatives 



25 



DEFUND/coiLECTiON SEDUCTION Attachment 3 

$380,000 Reduction ($190,000 6 months) 

Salary Savings 

1. Delete 1 Head Keeper $ 52.565 

2. Delate 1 Asst. Head Keeper $ 47,685 

3. Delete 1 Senior Keeper $ 43,274 

4. Delete 1 Curator $ 63.266 

5. Delete 1 Vet Tech $ 53.601 
S. Delete 1 Keeper $ 39.307 



Fringe 25X 




$ 380,000 



Deleteing the Head Keeper, Assistant Head Keeper, and Curator would severely cripple the 
Zoo's ability to comply with safety programs including Cal-OSHA, Illness Injury Prevention 
Progam and Hazardous Material Storage Procedures. Collection care and management would also 
be crippled as no other staff could assume the duties currently being performed by these 
personnel. As a result, compliance with USDA and other regulatory agency regulations would 
decrease dramatially and citations would increase dramatically. J 

Deleting the Keeper position would require eliminating the exhibits or animals listed below 
or comparable reductions in the collection. 

Defunding the Veterinary Technician would reduce the effectiveness of the Animal Health 
Program. Veterinary health was previously the most criticiied aspect of the Zoo's 
operation. Recent improvements which included the part time veterinarian have resulted in 
excellent and highly praised medical care program which would be severely hampered by this 
reduction. 

1. Train and turn over care and maintenance of San Bruno bison herd to San Bruno 
personnel. Eliminate red kangaroos, wallaroos, wallabies and grey kangaroos. This would 
eliminate 1 keeper position. Surplus or find alternate maintenance and care for Golden Gate 
Parle Bison herd. 

Total Savings $380,000 



SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS 
0764w 15SEP92 



25 



^a 




TuSCic Li6rary, "Documents (Dept. 
^fmh(: Qernj%gtk 



CITY AND COUNTY ; *~? \l\ OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMFMTS DEPT. 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEP 3 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 29, 1992 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst /\z<x>/w{iAjJcf 

SUBJECT: Budget Analyst's Recommended Reductions of the Mayor's Fiscal Year 
1992-93 Budget which were not taken by the Finance Committee. 

The Budget Analyst made a total of $10,369,671 recommended reductions 
including General Fund reductions totalling $6,457,249 in the Mayor's fiscal year 
1992-93 budget. The Finance Committee accepted $5,501,295 of these 
recommended General Fund reductions and did not accept $955,954 of the Budget 
Analyst's recommendations. 

At the request of the Finance Committee, the Budget Analyst has reviewed 
the recommendations that were not accepted in light of the City's current budget 
deficit. The attached schedule details the original recommendations (prior savings) 
which were not previously accepted by the Committee in the amount of $955,954. 
Also shown in the schedule are the current recommendations of the Budget Analyst 
totalling $888,459 including $704,558 of the Budget Analyst's original 
recommendations and $183,901 pertaining to a Municipal Railway clerical error 
recorded after the original recommendations had been completed. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 29, 1992 
Page 2 

The revised recommendations take into account the budgetary changes 
already proposed by the Mayor which causes us to withdraw some of our prior 
recommendations. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Mayor 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 9 



Page Object 

41 Public Library 



Posy Approved Approved 

Equip Number Amount 

Number From Iq From 



Is 



Current 
Prior Recommended 
Savings Savings 



1026 001 Librarian Technical Assistant 

Although 4 positions were transferred to 
the Children's baseline budget two new 
positions were requested. The 
Committee recommended granting one 
position for periodicals. 



3618 



13 12 $551,000 $512,219 



$38,781 



1016 060 Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Corresponds to reduction in salaries. 



2,662,125 2,652,430 9,695 



1016 113 Training 

Delete $15,000 increase for additional 
training related to the proposed staff 
reorganization. 



31,335 16,335 15,000 15,000 



Total Recommended Reductions 



$63,476 15,000 



75 Electricity 

479 100 Professional Services 

Would delete remainder of funds for 
contractual services for billing functions 
that could be performed more 
economically in-house. The approved 
budget was based on a reduction of the 
requested amount from $55,000 to 
$31,000. 



$31,000 



$0 $31,000 31,000 



Total Recommended Reductions 



$31,000 31,000 



Page 1 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 9 



PaaeObiect 

29 City Planning 

1334 100 Professional Services 

Reduce $10,000 match for a $10,000 
grant from the S.F. Foundation to 
improve intra-Departmental 
communications and morale, and to 
identify areas of improvement in permit 
processing; recommendation based in 
part on "retreat' element of the 
proposal which is not considered 
essential. 



Posl 


Approved 




Approved 


Equip 


Number 




Amount 


Number 


From 


IQ 


From 



IQ 



Prior 
Savings 



$76,000 



$66,000 $10,000 



Current 

Recommended 
Savings 

$10,000 



Total Recommended Reductions 

31 Fire Dept/Emergency Services 

114 001 Permanent Salaries - Misc. 

* The recommended reduction in 
Permanent Salaries - Misc. is the total 
of the specific individual position 
recommendations. 



$10,000 



10,000 



3,232,517 3,230,878 



128 001 Secretary II 

128 001 Executive Secretary I 

The proposed reduction was based on 
lack of Civil Service approval for an 
upward reclassification at the time of 
Finance Committee hearings, which 
was subsequently granted. The 
approved budget includes 5 
payperiods in the original 
classifications. Civil Service 
has subsequently approved the 
requested reclassification. 

114 060 Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Fringe benefits were not increased in 
the final recommendations to be 
consistent with the upward 
reclassification. 



1446 


2 3 


85,694 


115,965 


(30,271) 





1450 


4 3 


142,369 


110,459 


31,910 






46,441,755 46,441,755 



Page 2 









Attachment 








Page 3 of 9 




Pos/ Approved Approved 




Current 




EauiD Number Amount 




Prior Recommended 


PaaeObJect 


Number From To From 


Ifi 


Savings Sayings 


114 109 Other Contractual Services 


$208,313 


$193,313 


$15,000 


Reduce to current level of expenditure 








for discretionary maintenance activities 








plus new required maintenance 








activities for 1992-93. 









Original request was $252,313, which 
the Finance Committee reduced by 
$44,000 to $208,313. The Budget 
Analyst's original recommended 
reduction was $59,000. This further 
recommendation is no longer 
appropriate. 

114 012 Holiday Pay 

The recommended reduction 
concerned fire inspections and training 
on holidays. A reduction in holiday pay 
was recommended for uniform 
personnel not covered by the 
Firefighter's MOU requirement to pay 
"Staff Duty Assignment Pay". 

Of the recommended reduction of 
$256,438, $181 ,678 was reserved by 
the Finance Committee pending Meet 
and Confer with the FTrefighers Union 
on this issue. The remainder of 
$74,760 was included in the approved 
budget for Fire Support Services. 



4,525,886 4,269,448 256,438 $181,678 



Total Recommended Reductions 



$273,077 



181,678 



Page 3 



Attachment 
Page 4 of 9 



PageObiect 
38 Police 



Pos/ 


Approved 




Approved 


Equip 


Number 




Amount 


Number 


Erom 


IQ 


From 



IQ 



Current 
Prior Recommended 
Sayinos Savings 



145 109 Other Contractual Services 

The requested budget amount is an 
increase of 37% over the amount 
budgeted in 1991-92. Due to 
fiscal constraints, reduce request for 
contractual services that have not been 
funded in past years including gunshot 
residue analysis, removal of lead 
contamination from gun room, and DNA 
type testing by outside laboratories. 



$613,675 $528,375 



$85,300 



$85,300 



The recommended reduction was 
placed on reserve for further review of 
the proposed new expenditures. 



Total Recommended Reductions 
45 Social Services 



$85,300 85,300 



692 109 Other Contractual Services 

Reduce Cost of Living Adjustment for 
contractors from 4.5 percent to 4.2 
percent to reflect actual rate of inflation 
for remaining 8 months of this fiscal 
year. 



3,773,281 3,758,799 14,482 9,855 



Total Recommended Reductions 



$14,482 9,855 



Page 4 



Pag gQt?| ect 

83 Public Health 

830 001 Health Educator 

The proposed new Health 
Educator would train contractors and 
educate families about lead abatement 
techniques. The Budget Analyst 
believes that the existing 12 Health 
Educators together with the new 6139 
Senior Industrial Hygienist position 
will be able to adequately train 
contractors and educate families 
about lead abatement techniques. The 
Budget Analyst is recommending the 
approval of the one new 6139 Senior 
Industrial Hygienist position. This 
position would assist with the City's 
new lead prevention program and 
inspect for the incidence of toxic levels 
of lead. The Department reports that 
if the requested one new Health 
Educator position is not approved (as 
recommended by the Budget Analyst 
above), one of the existing 12 Health 
Educators may be reassigned from a 
Health Center to provide these 
proposed centralized education 
services. Reduced to remaining 8 
months of the fiscal year. 







Attachment 
Page 5 of 9 


Posl Approved Approved 
Equip Number Amount 
Number From To From 


IQ 


Current 

Prior Recommended 
Savings Savings 


2822 13 12 $552,443 


$509,988 


$42,455 $28,303 



728 060 Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Corresponds to reduction in salaries. 



7,020,985 7,010,372 



10,613 



7,075 



Page 5 



Attachment 
Page 6 of 9 



PaaeOblect 

728 101 Medical Services Contracts 
This would adjust the COLA 
lor MedicaJ Service Contracts to 
reflect the actual cost of 
living change of 4.2 percent rather 
than the 4.5 percent used by the 
Department to budget for these 
contracts. The Department used the 
4.5 percent as the rate of change in 
cost-of-living at the time the budget 
was prepared last year. Currently, the 
rate of change in cost-of-living for the 
Bay Area is 4.2 percent and 3.0 
percent for the nation as a whole. 
Reduced to remaining 8 months of the 
fiscal year. 

728 109 Other Contractual Services 

The Budget Analyst recommended a 
cut of $53,876 of which $26,938 was 
taken. 

The Department originally requested 
an increase of more than 40 percent. 
The Budget Analyst's original 
recommendation provided 
for inflation, a mobile x-ray unit for 
Tuberculosis screening, and funds to 
relocate the Bureau of Environmental 
Health. 



Pos/ Approved 
Equip Number 
Number From 



Is 



Approved 

Amount 

From 

$10,447,156 



la 

$10,417,156 



Current 

Prior Recommended 
Savings Savings 
$30,000 $20,000 



341,084 



314,146 



26,938 



26,938 



Page 6 



Attachment 
Page 7 of 9 



Paae Oblect 

729 130 Materials and Supplies 
DPH requested an 
increase tor this item of over 35 
percent. Reduce to 1991-92 actual 
expenditure levels adjusted for 
inflation and allowing for a 15 percent 
increase for pharmaceuticals, $8,900 
for Hepatftus vaccine and $5,600 for 
additional medical records. The 
recommended reduction also includes 
$31,000 for Tuberculosis supplies 
that are funded by grant funds. 

The Finance Committee cut $35,927, 
which is $100,000 less than the 
$135,927 reduction originally 
recommended by the Budget Analyst. 



Pos/ Approved 
Equip Number 
Number From 



IQ 



Approved 

Amount 

From 

$1,626,560 



IQ 

$1,526,560 



Current 
Prior Recommended 

Sayillfls Savings 
$100,000 $100,000 



730 350 Reproduction 

Reduce to 1991-92 budget level 
adjusted for inflation. 

Total Recommended Reductions 

86 San Francisco General Hospital 

885 001 Health Care Analyst 

The Hospital received 18 positions in 
1989-90 for improved compliance with 
JCAHO accreditation requirements 
including 2 Health Care Analysts, one 
of which the Hospital itself deleted in 
1991 -9Z The Hospital has not 
adequately justified the need for this 
additional position. The Hospital 
states that the Budget Analyst's 
recommendation could adversely 
impact the chances for receiving 
accreditation approval. 

873 060 Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Corresponds to reduction in salaries. 

Total Recommended Reductions 



131,841 100,841 31,000 31,000 



$241,006 $213,316 



2119 



5 4 $248,832 $205,141 $43,691 $29,128 



24,694,329 24,683.407 10,922 7,281 



54,613 36,409 



Page 7 



Attachment 
Page 8 of 9 



PaqeObject 



Pos/ Approved 


Approved 


Equip Number 


Amount 


Number From To 


From 



87 Community Mental Health Services 

904 101 Medical Services Contracts 

Reduction is based on applying only a 
4.2 percent Cost of Living adjustment 
to base expenditures of approximately 
$6.1 million for Mental Health 
Contracts. The Budget Analyst notes 
that the cost of living has increased by 
only 4.2 percent in the Bay Area and 
only 3.0 percent in the nation as a 
Reduced to remaining 8 months of the 
fiscal year. 

Total Recommended Reductions 

GRAND TOTAL (BEFORE CLERICAL 
ERRORS) 



la 



1.896.126 88,713,126 



Prior 
Savings 



Current 

Recommended 

Savings 



183,000 



122,000 



$183,000 



$122,000 



$955,954 



$704,558 



Page 8 



PageObject 



The following recommendations 
were not included in the Budget 
Analysts original recommendations 
because these new programs were 
added by "Clerical Error" after the 
Mayor's Budget had been analysed. 



35 Municipal Railway 



Attachment 
Page 9 of 9 



Pos/ Approved Approved 

Equip Number Amount 

Number From Iq From 



IQ 



Prior 

Savings 



Current 

Recommended 

Savings 



Clean On Time Vehicle Program 

9102 Transit Car Cleaner 

9131 Station Agent, Municipal Railway 

9139 Transit Supervisor 

9993 Salary Savings 

Passenger Incentive Program 

Fringe Benefits 

The Municipal Railway requested and 
the Mayor approved the inclusion of 
these two new programs in the fiscal 
year 1992-93 budget by clerical error. 
The Board of Supervisors approved 
the programs at the reduced amount of 
$1,000,000 which is $183,901 less than 
the $1,183,901 recorded by the 
Controller. PUC is required to find 
$1 ,000,000 in non General Fund 
monies to continue these programs 
after February, 1993. According to the 
Municipal Railway General Manager, as 
of September 14, 1992, all of the 53 
new employees have been hired for the 
Clean On Time Vehicle Program, and 
the Passenger Incentive Program 
($100,000) which is expected to start 
about mid-October. Reduce fringe 
benefits of the Clean On Time 
Program which were overbudgeted 
by $183,901. 

Total - Clean On Time Vehicle 

GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING 
CLERICAL ERRORS 



34 





$790,860 


$790,860 





4 





126,440 


126,440 





15 





611,817 


611,817 









(828,157) 


(828,157) 









100,000 


100,000 









382,941 


199,040 


$183,901 



1,183,901 1,000,000 



$183,901 



$955,954 



$888,459 



Page 9 






PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING 
WILL BEGIN AT 3:00 P.M. 



CALENDAR 



DOCUMPM^o 
SEP 2 8 1992 



CSPECIAL BUDGET MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE SAN FRANCIS ~0 

ABOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC LIBRARY 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 30. 1992 - 3:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 

2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 101-92-7 . Hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Changes which will reflect the City's budget as a result 
of the State budget cuts. ) 



Budget Analyst Recommendations - Court Budgets 



11 


Municipal Court 


10 


Superior Court 


Departmental Budget Hearings 


60 


Academy of Sciences 


13 


Adult Probation 


76 


Animal Care and Control 


28 


Art Commission 


2 


Assessor 


1 


Board of Supervisors 


70 


Chief Administrative Officer 


3 


City Attorney 


29 


City Planning 


30 


Civil Service 


9 


Controller 


44 


District Attorney 


75 


Electricity 


61 


Fine Arts Museums 


31 


Fire 


34 


Human Rights Commission 


25 


Mayor 



2. 



74 


Medical Examiner/Coroner 


37 


Permit Appeals 


38 


Police 


5 


Public Defender 


41 


Public Library 


90 


Public Works 


91 


Purchaser 


71 


Real Estate 


78 


Recorder 


42 


Recreation and Park Commission 


80 


Registrar 


45 


Social Services 


8 


Treasurer - Tax Collector 


ACTION: 




File 127- 


92-8. Hearing to consider legislatic 



Francisco Municipal Code by adding Section 502.7 in order to increase the City's 
Hotel Tax rate by one and a half percent from 11 to 12.5 percent by imposing a 1.5 
percent surcharge. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: 



3. File 100-92-7 . Hearing to consider revenue options to augment the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and related ordinances. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: 



4. File 161-92-4.1 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resubmission of the 
Redevelopment Agency Budget as approved as amended, as a condition of approval, 
to present the Agency's 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget to the Board of Supervisors, by 
September 1, 1992 for reconsideration in light of the fiscal impact to the Agency and 
City and County that may result from the final adoption of Fiscal Year 1992-93 
Budget for the State of California; companion measure to File 161-92-4. 
(Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: 



to 



CITY AND COUNTY 




PuBCic Library, (Documents (Dept. 
JVFItAQ Qerry f Kptfi 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

feOARD OF SUPERVISORS $ E p 30 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



September 28, 1992 



TO: ' Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst & co^Ai e^J^tto fj 

SUBJECT: "September 30, 1992^SpeciaTjinance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 101-92-7 

1. This item is a hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriations Ordinance. 

2 The Budget Analyst submitted two reports on the Mayor's revised budget to 

the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 1992. The Finance Committee held public 
hearings on September 23 and September 26 1992 to consider amendments to the 
1992-93 budget (Annual Appropriations Ordinance and the Annual Salary 
Ordinance). Recommendations for such amendments are scheduled to be considered 
by the Board of Supervisors on October 5 and 13, 1992. 

3. The Budget Analyst has previously reported on the impact of proposed 
amendments to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance on a department-by-department 
basis (see report of September 25, 1992.) Since the issuance of that report, major 
revisions to the Mayor's original proposal for amendments to appropriations for the 
Public Utilities Commission and the Municipal Railway have been considered by the 
Public Utilities Commission. Revised reports on these two departments are included 
in the Recessed Finance Committee report, Item 1, File 101-92-7. 

4. The Budget Analyst also prepared an overview analysis of the proposed 
ordinance amending the Annual Appropriation Ordinance based on the draft 
ordinance submitted by the Controller, on September 25, 1992. At that time, the 
results of amendments proposed in the draft ordinance showed that the City would 
still have a budget deficit of $24.3 million if the ordinance had been adopted. Since 
that time, the Controller has informed the Budget Analyst that further revenue 
reductions will be incorporated into the ordinance, making the resulting budget 
deficit approximately $25.79 million. As of the writing of this report, the Budget 
Analyst has not received a proposed ordinance in final form. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 2 - File 127-92-8 

1. This item is a hearing to consider amendments to Part III of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code by adding Section 502.7 in order to increase the City's 
Hotel Tax rate by 1.5 percent from 11 percent to 12.5 percent, by imposing a 1.5 
percent surcharge. The proposed effective date of the 1.5 percent surcharge increase 
is November 1, 1992. 

2. Section 502.7 is a proposed new section that would impose an additional 
1.5 percent (.015) surcharge to the City's Hotel Tax, which is now 11 percent (.11) 
for a total tax of 12.5 percent (.125) of the cost of renting a hotel room. All of the 
proceeds of this proposed additional 1.5 percent Hotel Tax surcharge would accrue 
to the General Fund. 

3. The following information was provided by the San Francisco Convention 
and Visitors Bureau relating to various cities which reported their Hotel Tax rate to 
the Bureau (these rates were in effect as of September 4, 1990): 



City 


Hotel Tax Rate (Percent) 


New York City 


19.25 + $2/rm. 


Seattle 


14.2 


Houston 


14 


Atlanta 


13 


Atlantic City 


13 


Cleveland 


13 


Dallas 


13 


Los Angeles 


12.5 


Chicago 


12.4 


Kansas City 


11.975 


Denver 


11.9 


Washington, D.C. 


11.7 + $1.50/rm. 


Anaheim 


11 


Miami 


11 


New Orleans 


11 


Philadelphia 


11 


Sacramento 


11 


Pasadena 


10.94 



Cjly. 
Phoenix 


Hotel Tax Rate (Percent! 
10.25 


Detroit 


10 


Long Beach 

Monterey 

Oakland 


10 
10 
10 


Orlando 


10 


San Jose 


10 


San Mateo County 
Santa Barbara 


8-10 
10 


Boston 


9.75 


SL Louis 


9.675 


Honolulu 


9 


Palm Springs 

Pittsburgh 

Portland 


9 
9 

9 


San Diego 
Reno 


9 
8 


Las Vegas 


7 


isting) 11 




posed) 12.5 





San Francisco (proposed) 

The following cities have increased their Hotel Tax rates since the data above was 
compiled in 1990. The Budget Analyst has not surveyed all jurisdictions listed above 
in order to update the data provided. 



Anaheim 
Miami 
Long Beach 
Palm Springs 
Reno 
Las Vegas 



increased from 11% to 13% 

11% to 12.5% 

10% to 11% 

9% to 10.8% 

8% to 9% 

7% to 8% 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



4. Based on eight months collections, assuming this proposed ordinance is 
approved and implemented effective November 1, 1992, total collections would 
amount to approximately $6.9 million based on current appropriations for Hotel Tax 
revenue at the current, 11 percent rate. On an annual basis, for twelve months, a 
one and one half percent Hotel Tax surcharge would amount to approximately $10.4 
million. 

5. Available data on hotel occupancy in San Francisco is compiled by PKF 
Consulting, a private firm that monitors reports from Hotels. The last increase in 
the City and County's Hotel Tax rate occurred on January 1, 1987. Data provided by 
PKF shows that in December, 1987, occupancy increased by 13 percent for the more 
costly Hotel rooms in the City in comparison with December of 1986. Overall, for all 
Hotels and all rates, occupancy increased by 7% for calendar year 1987. 

The table below illustrates occupancy trends and average room rate 
information reported by PKF Consulting since 1985. Comparisons from year to year 
are difficult as the basis of reporting is changed occasionally. Also, interpretation of 
occupancy rate data is dependent somewhat as the total number of Hotel rooms 
expands from year to year. 



Basis of Reporting 


Calendar 
Year 


Average 
Room Rate * 


Occupancy 
Bais 


Hotel Tax 
Rate 


Rooms over $70 per night 


1985 


$96.56 


67.72% 


9.75% 


Rooms over $70 per night 


1986 


$94.57 


68.97% 


9.75% 


Overall Average 


1987 


$103.61 


73.70% 


11.0% 


Overall Average 


1988 


$106.54 


72.80% 


11.0% 


Overall Average 


1989 


$102.58 


71.57% 


11.0% 


Overall Average 


1990 


$109.43 


68.70% 


11.0% 


Overall Average 


1991 


$109.99 


66.20% 


11.0% 


1st six months; rooms over 


1992 


$139.58 


62.07% 


11.0% 


$110/night 

Rooms$80to$110/night 

Under $80/night 




$90.92 
$62.84 


68.51% 
58.72% 





* Average Room Rate is Exclusive of Hotel Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax 



board of Supervisors 
budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

The data above shows that, despite the Hotel Tax rate increase in 1987 (from 
9.75 percent to 11 percent) hotel occupancy reached its highest rates, and held at 
the over 70 percent level through calendar year 1989. Following the 1989 
earthquake and the beginnings of economic recession in 1990, occupancy declined. 
The most recent report, for June, 1992, indicates increases in occupancy for the first 
time in several months. 

6. We can only conclude, based on these data, that recent trends in San 
Francisco hotel occupancy has not displayed any relationship to the most recent tax 
rate increase but instead appears to change in relationship to economic conditions 
as a whole. 

Recommendation 

The proposal to increase the Hotel Occupancy Tax is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-7 

This item is a hearing to consider revenue options to augment the 
1992-93 Annual Appropriations Ordinance and related ordinances. 

On June 29, 1992, the Budget Analyst provided a report to the Finance 
Committee outlining potential revenue increases that could be achieved 
should legislation be approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor 
regarding the real property transfer tax, hotel tax, sales tax and business 
taxes (see attached). Subsequently, a joint report by the Mayor's Office, 
Controller's Office and Budget Analyst's Office regarding additional possible 
scenarios for increasing the sales tax was presented to the Finance 
Committee on August 26, 1992. In addition, Item 2, File 127-92-8 of this 
report provides additional revenue information concerning an increase in the 
City's Hotel Tax. 

The Budget Analyst has also reviewed the following various revenue 
options: 

Local Motor Vehicle Fees 

The State Vehicle Code provides that local jurisdictions can impose 
additional local motor vehicle registration fees for specified purposes. There 
are approximately 465,000 vehicles registered in the City and County of San 
Francisco. The City currently collects the maximum $1 per vehicle for the 
City's Vehicle Theft Prevention Program and recently imposed the maximum 
$1 per vehicle fee for the City's Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. 

In addition, the State Vehicle Code which previously authorized a $2 
per vehicle registration fee, has increased such authorization to $4 per vehicle 
for Air Quality Management purposes. San Francisco and other Bay Area 
counties currently impose a $2 per vehicle Air Quality Management fee. The 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recently approved a 
resolution to increase the fee to $4 effective April 1, 1993. According to the 
BAAQMD, 60 percent of the revenues are available to the City and County 
through a competitive grant process, through the BAAQMD. The City has 
recently submitted a grant application in the amount of $1,341,000 for such 
funds. The remaining 40 percent of the increased revenues are returned to 
San Francisco, through the County Transportation Commission and must be 
used for specific projects related to transportation and air quality purposes. 
The BAAQMD estimates that in FY 1993-94 approximately $500,000 would 
be directly available to San Francisco, through the Transportation 
Commission. It is unclear whether such revenues could impact the General 
Fund revenues available to MUNI. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Increased Motor Fuel Taxes 

In 1980, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition L which 
authorized the Board of Supervisors to impose an additional $.01 (one cent) 
fuel tax, with the increased revenues to be used for public transit purposes. 
To date, this additional one cent fuel tax has not been imposed by the Board 
of Supervisors. The Public Utilities Commission estimates that such an 
increase would generate approximately $3.4 million of additional revenue for 
the City. However, on May 22, 1992, the City Attorney issued an opinion 
stating that because Proposition L was approved by a majority of the voters 
but not by 2/3 of the electorate, it is likely that this special purpose tax if 
enacted by the Board of Supervisors would be invalidated. 

Increased Bridge Toll Fees 

In April, 1991, Senator Kopp introduced Senate Bill (SB) 210 to 
increase State bridge tolls in the Bay Area for Class I vehicles by $1 and to 
provide for a specific distribution of such increased revenues for various 
transit and related projects in the Bay Area. SB 210 was amended several 
times with most of the discussions focused on the allocation of the revenues 
and was not approved. Since then, the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission (MTC) has achieved consensus with Bay Area transportation, air 
quality, business and environmental organizations regarding SB 210 to 
increase the tolls by $1 and use such toll revenues for the following three 
broadly denned transbay transportation programs: 

Capital Rehabilitation 
Congestion Services 
System Coordination. 

According to MTC, an estimated $58 million of additional revenue would be 
available in the Bay Area from this $1 toll increase. MTC also estimated that 
MUNI could qualify for $10.2 million to $13.9 million annual funding from 
this revenue source. However, as stated above, this legislation would require 
State approval. 

Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Fees 

Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office has advised the Budget 
Analyst that imposing fees on banks which install ATMs would not be legal 
because these machines do not encroach on the City's right-of-way. Based on 
discussions with the Department of Public Works, the banks generally work 
with the City, prior to installing such machines, to insure that such 
equipment is recessed into the building's facade and is not an encroachment 
on City property. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Annual Transit Impact Fees 

Although the City currently imposes a one-time transit impact fee on 
new downtown development, according to Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City 
Attorney's Office, in order to assess an annual transit impact fee on 
downtown businesses would require the creation of a special assessment 
district. Mr. Delventhal reports that the City analyzed this issue after the 
passage of Proposition 13. Previous studies conducted by outside consultants 
identified the special enhanced level of transit services provided to the 
downtown area, and were able to separate the City-wide transit costs from 
those costs associated with the downtown area in order to determine 
assessments on a per square footage basis. Such analyses would need to be 
updated to determine the actual amount of such a fee and the amount to be 
generated on an annual basis in order to determine the potential impact on 
the General Fund. However, Mr. Delventhal cautions that the creation of 
such an assessment district for the operation and maintenance costs for 
MUNI may be more strictly viewed by the current courts. 

Fire Department Suppression Assessments 

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of 
the Consolidated Fire Protection District, levied a benefit assessment on each 
parcel of property within the District in order to establish supplementary 
funds for fire protection and suppression services. These assessments are 
collected with the County's general taxes, were initiated in 1991-92 and are 
assessed for 20 years, with adjustments in the rates over the period. The 
assessments are based on the type of use of the property and the size of 
improvements on the parcel. Such assessments range from $7-8 for an 
individual condominium unit to $1,177 for a warehouse over 50,000 square 
feet. A similar benefit assessment district throughout San Francisco could be 
created to enhance the Fire Department's budget, with potential savings to 
the General Fund. The specific amount of revenues that could be generated 
and assessment fees would vary. Mr. Delventhal reports that he is currently 
reviewing the legal issues concerning the ability of San Francisco to create 
such a benefit district. 

Viacom's Franchise Fees 

The current cable television franchise requires Viacom Cablevision of 
San Francisco to pay the City a franchise fee of five percent of Viacom's gross 
receipts. Of the five percent, 4.8 percent is deposited in the City's General 
Fund and 0.2 percent is deposited into a special Cable Television Access and 
Development Fund for public, educational and municipal access activities. In 
FY 1992-93, the City is budgeted to receive $3,073,200 in the General Fund 
from this franchise fee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

The current contract which specifies these provisions extends until the 
year 2002. However, every three years, the City has an opportunity to modify 
the contract and the City is currently in this three year window period. Ms. 
Ann Kronenberg of the Mayor's Office, in conjunction with the 
Telecommunications Policy Committee, is currently reviewing other 
compliance and operational issues regarding Viacom and intends to bring a 
proposal before the Board of Supervisors in the near future regarding 
potential modifications to the Viacom contract. Such modifications could 
address the issue of the municipal cable channel and opportunities to share 
space on this channel with Viacom and the potential for additional direct 
revenues to the City from such an arrangement. The specific proposal or 
revenue potential from such modifications was not currently avaiable. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Fage 1 of 7 




CITY AND COUNTY fcrZf~stV\ O F S A N FR AN C I S C O 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



June 29, 1992 

To: Finance Committee 

From: Budget Analyst 

Subject: City and County General Fund Revenues 

Pursuant to your request, we are providing the following discussion of 
major City and County General Fund revenue sources and potential revenue 
increases should appropriate legislation be approved by the Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor. 

Real Property Transfer Tax 

This tax is imposed on the transfer of real property. The current tax rate is 
$5.00 per thousand dollars (0.5%) of assessed valuation as established by the sale 
price of the property. Current law does not stipulate who shall pay the tax. 
Typically it is paid from sale proceeds at final closing, although the burden of 
payment can be negotiated between the buyer and the seller. 

The Real Property Transfer Tax revenue is subject to unpredictable 
variations due to fluctuations in the real estate market. In fiscal year 1990-91, 
$21.0 million was budgeted for this revenue, while only $13.7 million was 
collected. In 1991-92, $18.0 million has been budgeted while actual collections will 
range between $13.0 and $14.0 million. The Mayor's recommended 1992-93 budget 
includes Real Property Transfer Tax revenue in the amount of $16.0 million. 

The City of Oakland has recently proposed an increase in their Real 
Property Transfer Tax rate from 1.0% to 1.5%; three times the current rate for San 
Francisco. If this increase is approved, Oakland will join the City of Berkeley as 
the highest rate for this tax in the State of California. 

In 1990, the Board of Supervisors considered a proposal to increase this tax 
to $7.50 per thousand dollars (0.75%). The ordinance was not adopted. 



Fage z or r 

Memo to Finance Committee 
June 29, 1992 
page 2 

If a similar proposal were reconsidered this year, the annual increase to 
revenue would be $8.0 million based on the presently budgeted amount of $16.0 
million at current rates. However, it would only be possible to levy the tax for 
eleven months at the most, due to time lags in approving and implementing the 
legislation, resulting in a potential 1992-93 revenue increase of approximately $7.3 
million. Alternative rate adjustments would of course result in proportionate 
revisions to the revenue. 

As noted above, this revenue has been unpredictable, with significant 
shortfalls over the last two fiscal years. The likelihood of meeting the current 
revenue estimate of $16.0 million for fiscal year 1992-93 will depend on some 
measure of improved economic conditions resulting in increased real estate sales 
over current levels. 

Attachment I to this report provides a table of Comity and City real property 
transfer tax rates. Most of the data are from a 1991 survey, and may have 
changed, although some City rates, indicated by an asterisk, have been updated to 
reflect a recent survey by the City of Oakland. 

Hotel Tax 

The current Hotel Tax rate is 11%. It is divided between an 8% base rate and 
a 3% 'surcharge' (1.75% to General Fund; 1.25% to Convention Facilities for 
Moscone Center expansion). Total revenue from the 11% tax rate in 1992-93 are 
budgeted at $76.6 million. 

If the Hotel Tax were raised by 1% (from 11% to 12%) the annual revenue 
increase (twelve months) would amount to approximately $6.96 million. However, 
only a maximum of ten months could be realized in 1992-93, for a revenue 
increase of approximately $5.8 million. 

Attachment II shows the results of a 1990 survey of Hotel Tax rates in 
major Cities across the country. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



rage J or / 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 29, 1992 
page 3 



Sate T a x, 

The total current sales tax rate is 8. 
this tax are distributed as follows: 

Portion of 8.5% Rate 

6.0% 



1.0% 

0.5% 
0.25% 
0.5% 
0.25% 

8.5% 



% in San Francisco. The proceeds from 

Distributed to 

Current total to State of California; 
includes 4.75% base rate; 0.5% 
permanent surtax; 0.25% temporary 
surtax; 0.5% dedicated to 
realignment. 

Amount provided to City and County 
General Fund; 1992-93 budget 
amount is $89.1 million. 

County Transportation Commission 

Statewide County Transportation 

Bay Area Rapid Transit District 

Surtax, expiring 6/93, dedicated to 
San Francisco Unified School District 
and San Francisco Community 
College District 

Total Sales Tax Rate 



Under a current State budget proposal, Counties would be authorized to 
increase sales tax rates over a three year period to compensate for the revenue lost 
due to the removal of Proposition 13 nailout' revenues. In the first year fiscal year 
(1991-92), the County would be permitted to increase the sales tax rate by 0.5% (to a 
total of 9.0% in San Francisco) for a period of approximately eight months. The 
increased revenue for this eight-month period would approximate $29.7 million. 
Over twelve months, the 0.5% additional sales tax rate would produce 
approximately $44.5 million. 

The current State budget proposal described above would also phase in, over 
three years, authorization for Counties to increase sales taxes by a total of 1.25%. 
Using current revenue estimates, this increase would produce approximately 
$111.0 million annually. 



Board of Supervisors 
budgkt Analyst 

11 



Page A of 7 

Memo to Finance Committee 
June 29, 1992 
page 4 

Business Taxes (Payroll and Gross Receipts: Business License Registration Fee) 

Currently, all San Francisco businesses pay a Business License 
Registration fee of $150 annually , unless the gross receipts of the business is less 
than $15,000. Businesses subject to Payroll Tax or Gross Receipts Tax must pay 
the higher of either 1.5% of their total payroll or, for most businesses, $3.00 per 
$1,000 of gross receipts. San Francisco business with a calculated tax liability of 
$2,500 or less are exempt from the payroll or gross receipts tax and therefore are 
only subject to the $150 annual registration fee. Of an estimated total of 55,000 
businesses in San Francisco, only about 10%, or 5,500, are not exempt from paying 
either the payroll or gross receipts tax (those businesses with a tax liability of 
$2,501 or more). 

Budgeted revenues from business taxes for 1992-93 are: 

Payroll Tax $127,610,000 

Gross Receipts 21,990,000 

Registration Fee 7.400.000 

Total $157,000,000 

La 1988-89, a surtax of 0.1% on payroll taxes increased the payroll tax rate 
from 1.5% to 1.6% (a 6.67% increase) A similar increase, if implemented now, 
would produce approximately $8.5 mil lion in payroll taxes and $1.4 million in 
gross receipts tax revenue, or a total of $9.9 million for 1992-93. Because such 
taxes are collected twice annually, legislation made retroactive to July 1, 1992 
would permit the full collection of these amounts in 1992-93. 

Lowering the threshold amount for exemption from business tax liability 
would also increase revenue. The Mayor's Office of Economic Development 
recently analyzed the effect of the current $2,500 level for the exemption and found 
that setting the level at lower levels would increase revenue by up to a total of 
approximately $16.0 milli on annually if the exemption were removed altogether. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 29, 1992 
page 5 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 7 



Based on stratified data provided by the Tax Collector for 1989-90, the 
following number of business would become subject to the business tax and 
provide the indicated increased revenue annually based on the indicated 
exemption threshold: 

Number of Businesses 



Subject to Tax if 
Tax liability were 


that Would become 
Subiect to Tax 


Increased 
Annual Revenue 


$2,001 


or more instead of 
current level of $2,501 


1,604 


$3.6 


million 


$1,501 


or more instead of 
current level of $2,501 


3,251 


$6.5 




$1,001 


or more instead of 
current level of $2,501 


5,744 


$9.6 




$500 


or more instead of 
current level of $2,501 


10,127 


$12.7 




$1 


or more instead of 


33,164 


$16.0 


million 



current level of $2,501 

The number of businesses and revenue amounts shown above include all 
businesses exempt from the business tax liability in 1989-90. The Tax Collector 
estimated that approximately 15% of such small businesses did not file business 
tax returns. 

At the present exemption level of $2,500 in tax liability, all businesses with a 
total payroll of $166,666 or less (based on a 1.5% payroll tax) and all businesses 
with gross receipts of $833,333 or less (based on a $3.00 per 1,000 of gross receipts) 
are exempt. 

' c 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Siipervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 




7,/ 

Harvey M. Rose 

Supervisor Maher 

Clerk of the Board 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Controller 

Kent Sims 

Jean Mariani 

Barbara Kolesar 

Ted Lakey 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

13 



rage o or / 
Attachment I 

The table below illustrates County andy City Transfer Tax Rates based on 1991 
data, updated for selected cities by a recent survey conducted recently by the City of 
Oakland. 



COUNTY TRANSFER TAX RATE 


CITY TRANSFER TAX RATE 




tax per 




tax per 




thousand 




thousand 


Alameda 


$1.10 


Alameda 


$4.40 






Albany 


$4.40 






* Berkeley 


$15.00 






Hayward 


- 






Montclair 


- 






** Oakland 


$10.00 






* Piedmont 


$6.50 






San Leandro 


$2.00 


Contra Costs 


$1.10 


* Richmond 


$7.00 


Fresno 


$1.10 


Fresno 


. 


Kern 


$1.10 


Bakersfield 


- 


Los Angeles 


$1.10 


Los Angeles 


$4.50 






Beverly Hills 


- 






Culver City 


$4.50 






Northridge 


- 






Redondo Beach 


$220 


Marin 


$1.10 


Belvedere 


- 






San Rafael. 


$0.45 






Tiburon 


- 


Napa 


$1.10 


St. Helena 


- 


Orange 


$1.10 


Anaheim 


$0.60 


Riverside 


$1.10 


Riverside 


- 


Sacramento 


$1.10 


Sacramento 


$250 


San Diego 


$1.10 


San Diego 


- 


San Francisco 


$5.00 


San Francisco 


- 


San Mateo 


$1.10 


Atherton 


- 






Hillsborough 


- 






Menlo Park 


- 






Redwood City 


- 






San Mateo 


$5.00 


Santa Clara 


$1.10 


Mountain View 


$3.30 






Palo Alto 


- 






San Jose 


$3.30 



City and County of San Francisco $ 5.00 



Updated by recent Oakland Survey 
Proposed increase to $15.00 now pending 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

14 



Page 7 of 7 
Attachment II 



The following information was provided by the San Francisco Convention 
and Visitors Bureau relating to various cities which reported their Hotel Tax rate 
to the Bureau (these rates were in effect as of September 4, 1990): 



City 



Hotel Tax Rate (Percent) 



New York City 


19.25 + $2/rm. 


Seattle 


14.1 


Houston 


14 


Atlanta 


13 


Atlantic City 


13 


Cleveland 


13 


Dallas 


13 


Los Angeles 


125 


Chicago 


12.4 


Kansas City 


11575 


Denver 


115 


Washington, D.C. 


11.7 + $1.50/rm. 


Anaheim 


11 


Miami 


11 


New Orleans 


11 


Philadelphia 


11 


Sacramento 


11 


Pasadena 


10.94 


Phoenix 


1025 


Detroit 


10 


Long Beach 


10 


Monterey 


10 


Oakland 


10 


Orlando 


10 


San Jose 


10 


San Mateo County 


8-10 


Santa Barbara 


10 


Boston 


9.75 


St. Louis 


9.675 


Honolulu 


9 


Palm Springs 


9 


Pittsburgh 


9 


Portland 


9 


San Diego 


9 


Reno 


8 


Las Vegas 


7 



San Francisco (existing) 



11 



BOAKI) OF Si TPKKV1SORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 4 -File 161-92-4.1 



Department San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Resubmission of the SFRA's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget to the 

Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992 for reconsideration 
in light of the fiscal impacts to the SFRA and to the City's 
General Fund that have resulted from the final adoption of 
the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget of the State of California. 

Description: During its review of the Redevelopment Agency's FY 1992-93 

budget in August of 1992, the Board of Supervisors amended 
the Agency's Budget to require the Agency to resubmit its 
budget to the Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992. The 
Board of Supervisors wanted to reconsider the Agency's 
budget when the impact on the City from the State budget 
reductions were known. This item was continued by the 
Finance Committee because the State budget had not been 
adopted. 

According to the SFRA, State legislation recently passed and 
signed by the Governor requires Redevelopment Agencies to 
pass through to the San Francisco Unified School District 
and the San Francisco Community College District 
approximately 16 percent of their 1990-91 tax increment 
revenues. However, the SFRA reports that there are 
currently varying interpretations as to whether this liability 
includes property taxes from Redevelopment Project Areas 
totalling $1,255,151 already paid to the Districts in FY 1990-91. 
According to the SFRA, if the liability does not include this 
amount, the SFRA will have to pay the San Francisco Unified 
School District and the San Francisco Community College 
District a total of $3,168,271. If this amount is reduced by 
$1,255,151 for the amounts already provided to these Districts, 
the remaining liability would be $1,913,120. According to Mr. 
Bob Gamble of the SFRA, the amount of either $3,168,271 or 
$1,913,120 represents a one-time obligation that the SFRA is 
required to pay in May of 1993. According to Mr. Gamble, a 
list of the Redevelopment Agencies' liabilities will be provided 
to the SFRA by the State's Director of Finance on October 1, 
1992. 

Mr. Gamble reports that the SFRA does not at this time know 
which budget reductions it will take to meet its obligation. As 
noted above, the SFRA has until May of 1993 to decide which 
spending reductions to make. However, Mr. Gamble advises 
that the SFRA will be making the necessary expenditure 
reductions sometime during October of 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



In addition to the State's cuts, the Mayor's Office is 
requesting that the SFRA postpone half of its debt service 
from 1992-93 tax increment bonds or $2.5 million until FY 
1993-94. Approximately 87 percent of tax increment revenues 
used to repay tax increment bonds is General Fund monies. 
Thus, postponing half of its debt service would result in 
approximately $2.2 million in General Fund savings during 
FY 1992-93 and increase General Fund expenditures by 
approximately $2.2 million in FY 1993-94. 

1. The proposed postponement of debt service payment would 
act as a no interest loan to the City to be repaid during FY 
1993-94. 

2. In his message transmitting amendments to meet the 
City's budget deficit, the Mayor proposed to make 
adjustments on revenues and reserves in non-General Fund 
departments (Airport, Port and Redevelopment Agency) 
totalling $28 million. The proposed budget amendments 
transfer $1.0 million from Port reserves (See Item 1, File 101- 
92-7). The details relating to the Airport and Redevelopment 
Agency have not yet been finalized. 

Approval of any amendment to the Redevelopment Agency 
budget is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 




cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 



Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 




y 




Public Li6rary, (Documents CDe-pt. 
WFB{: gerry^ptft 



CITY AND COUNTY \l[ %f= OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMPMT.q DRPT. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEP 30 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
BUDGET ANALYST PUBL|C UBRAR ^ 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

September 28, 1992 
TO: TOiance Committee 

/ u FROM: Budget Analyst Ae a?*"****- <&vW* 

SUBJECT: September 30, 1992 Recessed Finance Committee Meeting 
Item 1 - File 101-92-7 

1. This item is a hearing to consider amendments to the 1992-93 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. 

2. The Budget Analyst submitted two reports to the Board of Supervisors 
concerning the Mayor's proposed budget revisions on September 25, 1992. 
The Finance Committee held public hearings on September 23 and 
September 26 1992 to consider amendments to the 1992-93 budget (Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance). Recommendations for such amendments are 
scheduled to be considered by the Board of Supervisors on October 5 and 13, 
1992. 

3. The Budget Analyst has previously reported on the impact of proposed 
amendments to the Annual Appropriation Ordinance on a department-by- 
department basis (see report of September 25, 1992.) Since the issuance of 
that report, major revisions to the Mayor's original proposal for amendments 
to appropriations for the Public Utilities Commission and the Municipal 
Railway have been agreed to by the Mayor and submitted to the Public 
Utilities Commission for their approval. Revised reports on these two 
departments are included in succeeding pages of this report. 

4. The Budget Analyst also prepared an overview analysis of the proposed 
ordinance amending the Annual Appropriation Ordinance based on the draft 
ordinance submitted by the Controller, on September 25, 1992. At that time, 
the results of amendments proposed in the draft ordinance showed that the 
City would still have a budget deficit of $24.3 million if the ordinance had 
been adopted. Since that time, the Controller has informed the Budget 
Analyst that further General Fund revenue reductions will be incorporated 
into the ordinance. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not received a proposed ordinance in final form. Due to various anticipated 
changes to the draft ordinance, the amount of the remaining deficit may 
increase or decrease depending on future actions. 



Budget Revision Summary 



// 



* 



Department : 



Budget Data 
Total Expenditures 
Net General Fund Expenditures 

Department Revenue 

Total Authorized Permanent Positions 

Funded Positions (FTE) 

including permanent salaries, net of salary 

savings; temporary salaries, overtime, EWW 

Estimated number of layoffs 



40 ME Utilities Commission (otf^ J bk. *\ 

1992-93 Budget as Mayor's Proposed Revised Budget as 
Adopted Revisions Re commended by the Mayor 



$44,206,454 



($332,256) 



558 



540 



($1,624,564) 



($1,624,564) 



47 



47 



47 



$42,581,890 



($1,956,820) 



511 



493 



Note: The Budget Analyst is informed that the Mayor and PUC staff have agreed on certain changes to 
rescissions originally included in the proposed ordinance. Although not yet finally approved by the Mayor's Office 
as of the writing of this report, these changes reflect budget reductions as approved by the PUC. 

Description of Impact on Services : 

The proposed budget reductions for the Public Utilities Commission total $1,624,564 for 
the PUC bureaus in personnel and overhead accounts. An additional $975,000 in reduced costs 
resulting from a Work Furlough Program is budgeted for the MUNI and the PUC. However, 
definite percentages of the $975,000 reduction due to furloughs have not been assigned to the 
MUNI and to the PUC as of the writing of this report. 



PUC - General Manager 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries. 

1404 A Clerk 

1760 A Offset Mach. Operator 

1762 A Sr. Offset Machine Operator 

1774 A Head Photographer 

1778 A Reproduction Services 

1824 A Principal Analyst 

8121 A Investigative Protective Services 

8221 A Chief, Protection Svcs. 

Mandatory Fringe Svgs. 

Obj 109 Security Contract 

Obj 109 Reproduction Contract 

Subtotal PUC - General Mgr. 

* Grant funded position 



No. of 
Positions 
Deleted 



Amount 



1 


$13,385 


2 


29,341 


1 


17,603 


1 


22,706 


1 


21,532 


1 


0* 


1 


26,136 


1 


39,765 




42,618 




100,000 




50,000 



$363,086 



board of Supervisors - budget analyst 

2 



No. of 




Positions 




Deleted 


Amount 


1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 


$36,449 
16,378 
19,823 
26,899 
56,883 
39,914 
49.086 



Department: 40 • Public Utili ties Commission 

page 2 



Impact on Services {According to PUC) 

Eliminates all photographic and reproduction services in-house. 

Impairs liaison with outside investigative agencies. 

Eliminates maintenance of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental 
Design (CPTED) computerized security system. 

PUC - Finance 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

A058 A Director of Enterprise Accounting 

1426 A Sr.Clk Typist 

1454 A Exec Secty m 

1656 A Head Accountant 

1824 A Prin. Admin Analyst 

9158 A Asst. Claims Agent 

Mandatory Fringe Svgs 

Subtotal PUC-Finance 7 . $245,432 

Impact on Services {According to PUC) 

Delays in audit completions will jeopardize Muni's federal, state, 
and local grants. 

Unable to maintain fixed assets system. 

General slowdown in processing accounting documents. 

Increased span of control for the General Claims Agent. 

PUC - BMIS 

No. of 
Positions 

Deleted Amount 
Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1739 A Computer Operations Supvr. II 
1780 A Asst. Chief, Comp. Operations 
1877 A Supv Systems Programming 
1880 A Chief of Systems 
Mandatory Fringe Svgs 
SubObj 1240 DP Equipment 

Total PUC - BMIS 5 $240,378 



board of Supervisors - Budget analyst 

3 



1 


$24,361 


1 


26,868 


1 


36,146 


2 


64,927 




38,076 




50.000 



Department: 
page 3 



40 - Public Utilities Commission 



Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Delay in implementing Muni's office automation program. 

Delay in implementing electronic mail and purchasing requisitions 
system. 

Not able to purchase spare parts for microcomputers for PUC 

departments. 

PUC - Utility Engineering 

09499 PUC Personnel Fund 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1222 A Sr Pay/Pers Clk 
1404 A Clerk 
1426 A SrClk-Typist 
1446 A Secretary II 
1452 A Exec Secty I 
1630 A Account Clk 
1842 A Management Asst, 
1844 A SrMgmtAsst 
1880 A Chief of Systems 
5208 A Civil Engr 
5210 A Sr Civil Engr 
5212 A PrinEngr 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
Subtotal PUC-UEB 



No. of 




Positions 




Deleted 


Amount 


1 


$19,512 


1 


10,256 


4 


61,304 


4 


70,278 


1 


24,424 


2 


35,139 


1 


22,485 


1 


23,423 


1 


39,790 


1 





1 


39,804 


3 


136,363 




120.694 



21 



Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Eliminates 21 positions without affecting the core operations of the Bureau. 
PUC - Personnel 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1233 A Affirmative Action Spec 
1246 A Prin Pers Anal 
1272 A Sr. Dept. Pers. Officer 
1426 A Sr. Clk Typist 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal - PUC Personnel 



No. Of 
Positions 
Deleted 



Amount 



2 


$45,949 


1 


34,714 


1 


40,559 


1 


16,535 




34.439 



$603,472 



$172,196 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - BUDGET ANALYST 



Department: 40 - Public Utilit ies Commission 

page 4 

Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Diminished capacity to assist in recruiting, conducting AA/EEO 
training and processing discrimination complaints. 

Reduced capacity to handle examinations for the Water 
Department and Hetch Hetchy. 

Downgrades the level of personnel management assigned to Muni. 

TOTAL PUC $1,624,564 

Recapitulation of Proposed Reductions for the PUC 



Bureau 


No. of 

Positions 


Amount 


General Manager 

Finance 

BMIS 

Utility Engineering 

Personnel 

Subtotal, Personnel 


9 
7 
5 
21 
5 
47 


$363,086 

245,432 
240,378 
603,472 
172.196 
$1,624,564 


Comments 







1. As previously stated, the Mayor's Office and the PUC have not finalized the reductions 
to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor's Office reports that it plans to 
present a finalized version at the Finance Committee meeting of September 30, 1992. 

2. The proposed budget reduction of $1,624,564 reduction includes contractual savings 
and Data Processing Equipment in the amount of $200,000. 

3. In addition to the proposed budget reduction of $1,624,564, the PUC and the MUNI 
would reduce their budgets in total by $1,000,000 through work furloughs. As of the writing of 
this report, the allocation between the MUNI and the PUC bureaus had not been decided upon. 
Attached is a set of options prepared by the PUC that allocates work furlough savings based on 
position classifications that would be included in such a Work Furlough Program. Option 1 of the 
Attachment would include all PUC assigned personnel including all MUNI, Water Department, 
Hetch Hetchy, and PUC Bureaus personnel, in the Work Furlough Program. Options 2 and 3 
would exempt MUNI drivers, 50 percent of MUNI's 9139 Transit Supervisor positions, 50 
percent of MUNI's 9140 and 9141 Transit Manager positions, the Water Department, and Hetch 
Hetchy. In addition, 25 percent of MUNI's maintenance staff would be exempted from the Work 
Furlough Program under Option 2 and 50 percent of the maintenance staff under Option 3. 

4. Based on data provided by the PUC indicating furloughs for all MUNI and PUC 
employees (Option 1 to the Attachment in the PUC Section of this report), a one day furlough 
would amount to a $750,290 savings of which $580,690 in salaries and fringe benefits would be 
borne by MUNI and $169,600 in salaries and fringe benefits would be borne by PUC, Water 
Department and Hetch Hetchy. Based on a $1,000,000 furlough program, each employee would 
be furloughed 1.33 days and the total $1,000,000 would be divided $773,954 to MUNI and 
$226,046 to PUC, Water and Hetch Hetchy. 

board of Supervisors - budget analyst 

5 



Department : 40 - Public Utilities Commission 

page 5 

5. In addition to the foregoing budget reductions, the Water Department and Hetch 
Hetchy would each provide $2.5 million in equity transfers to the General Fund, for a total of $5 
million. The $5 million would replace the previously planned Muni service reductions ($3 
million) and Muni fare increases ($1.5 million) that will now not be implemented. The Water 
Department and Hetch Hetchy would obtain the $2.5 million each by cutting previously 
approved appropriations for major capital projects. 



Board of Supervisors - budget analyst 

6 



Attachme 



Furloughs 

Muni Salaries (non-platform) 

New Cuts 
Subtotal 

Exempt Pos. 

50% of 9139 Transit Sup 
50% of 9140 and 9141 TM I and II 
25% of Maint. staff 
50% of Maint. staff 
Subtotal 

Muni Savings Per day 
Bureau Savings per day 
Fringe Benefits 
Total Savings per Day 

Drivers salaries (net) 
Drivers savings per day 
Fringe Benefits 
Total Savings- drivers 

Grand total savings per day 

Water 

Hetchy 

Total PUC savings per day 



Option 1 


Option 2 


Option 3 


$63,600,377 


$63,600,377 


$63,600,377 


(§906,344) 


($906,344) 


($906,344) 


$62,694,033 


$62,694,033 


$62,694,033 




($4,581,049) 


($4,581,049) 




($1,910,541) 


($1,910,541) 




($10,634,539) 


($21,269,078) 




$45,567,905 


$34,933,366 


$239,290 


$173,923 


$133,333 


$65,000 


$65,000 


$65,000 


$73,030 


$57,342 


$47,600 


$377,320 


$296,265 


$245,933 




(2) 


(3) 


$60,000,000 






$229,008 






$54,962 






$283,970 






$661,290 






$64,000 






$25,000 






$750,290 






(1) 







(1) Assumes all PUC employees are furloughed and Water and Hetchy 
savings are transferred to General Fund. 

(2) Assumes all non-driving personnel are furloughed except 
25% of maintenance staff and 50% of transit supervisors and 
transit managers. No Water or Hetchy furloughs. 

(3) Assumes all non-driving personnel are furloughed except 
50% of maintenance staff and 50% of transit supervisors and 
transit managers. No Water or Hetchy furloughs. 



Department : 



Wggf Bern® Summary 1 ^ e ''fawn «H*c 

35 Municipal Railway 



1992-93 Budget as Mayor's Proposed Revised Budget as 



Adopted 



$272,925,479 



101,834,278 



171,091,201 



3,322 



3,181.7 



Revisions Re commended by the 



$270,994,398 



99,903,197 



171,091,201 



3,297 



Budget Data 

Total Expenditures 

Net General Fund Expenditures 

Department Revenue 

Total Authorized Permanent Positions 

Funded Positions (FTE) 

including permanent salaries, net of salary 

savings; temporary salaries, overtime, EWW 

Estimated number of layoffs 

Description of Impact on Services : 

The Mayor's Proposed Revisions total $ 1,931,081 includes $1,157,127 in 
budget cuts to MUNI personnel and overhead costs and $773,954 in work furloughs 
for all MUNI administrative staff and transit drivers as follows: 

1. Cuts in Personnel and Overhead Costs related to Efficiencies 



($1,931 


,081) 


(1,931 


,081) 





25 


24.6 


25 



Mayor 



3,157.1 



No. of 

Positions 



Amount 



Reduce Administration and Management 
Transportation Division 



1844 Senior Management Asst 


1 


$25,675 


5289 Transit Planner EI 


1 


27,862 


9139 Transit Supervisor I 


3 


80,767 


9142 Transit Manager III 


2 


74,552 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




56,391 


Materials and Supplies (Uniforms) 




50.000 


Subtotal 


7 





$315,247 



board of Supervisors - budget analyst 



Department : 35 Municipal Railway 

page 2 



En gineering and Administration Division 

1312 Public Information Offficer 
9188 Transit Equip Engineer 
5240 Electrical Engineer 
5256 Mechanical Engineer 
5346 Mechanical Eng Assoc I 
5268 Architect 
5354 Electrical Engineer 
5206 Associate Civil Engineer 
9995 Positions Not Detailed 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal 8 322,278 

Maintenance Division 



1 


$19,960 


1 


44,131 


1 


34,713 


1 


34,712 


1 


22,916 


1 


16,938 


1 


22,916 


1 


29,976 




27,500 




68.516 



1630 


Account Clerk 


1 


$15,620 




1840 


Junior Management Asst 


1 


17,861 




1929 


Parts Storekeeper 


1 


19,110 




7329 


Elec Main Asst Supervisor 


1 


33,369 




7409 


Elec Tran Svc Worker 


1 


20,619 




7214 


Elec Trans Equip 


1 


39,385 




7262 


Maintenance Painter 


1 


24,721 




2718 


Custodian Supervisor I 


1 


18,361 




5364 


Civil Engineer Associate I 


1 


22,916 




7390 


Welder 


1 


23,824 




7318 


Elect Maintenance Tech 


2 


62,249 




7441 


Tool Room Mechanic 


1 


15,112 




Overtime 




45,488 




Holiday Pay 




29,881 




Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




104.899 




Subtotal 


13 




493,415 


Positions Not Detailed 




$20,619 




Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




5.568 




Subtotal 






26.187 


Total Efficiency Reductions 


28 




$1,157,127 



2. Cuts related to Work Furlough Program 

The Mayor has recommended a Work Furlough Program for both MUNI 
and PUC personnel totaling $1,000,000. At this time, the Mayor has not provided 
any information related to which positions at MUNI and PUC would be identifed in 
his proposed furlough program for these two departments. However, based on data 
provided by PUC, indicating work furloughs for all MUNI and PUC employees 
(Option 1 to the Attachment in the PUC Section of this report), a one day work 

Board of Supervisors - Budget Analyst 

9 



Department : 35 Municipal Railway 

page 3 



furlough would amount to a $750,290 savings of which $580,690 in salaries and 
fringe benefits would be borne by MUNI and $169,600 in salaries and fringe 
benefits would be borne by PUC, Water Department and Hetch Hetchy. Based on a 
$1,000,000 furlough program, each employee would be furloughed 1.33 days and the 
total $1,000,000 would be divided $773,954 to MUNI and $226,046 to PUC, Water 
and Hetch Hetchy. PUC is also considering other furlough options that would 
exempt various MUNI maintenance classifications. 

Comments 

1. According to MUNI, the impact of the personnel cuts in the Engineering 
and Adniinistration Division would be minimal. MUNI is expected to transfer some 
of the positions, including Classes 9188, 5240, 5256, 5346, 5268, 5354 and 5206 to 
grant funding. Elimination of Class 1312 would reduce the hours of the Telephone 
Information Center. 

2. In the Transportation Division, the elimination of Class 1844 would 
require additional work to be performed by the unit managers, the elimination of 
Class 5289 would delay bus stop relocation studies and revenue vehicle acquisition 
plans, elimination of 3 Class 9139s would reduce special events planning and the 
ehmination of 2 Class 9142s would impair budget preparations and the completion 
of various reports. 

3. Because the Mayor has just identifed several new position cuts to the 
Maintenance Division (Classes 2718, 5364, 7390, 7318 and 7441), MUNI has not 
had sufficient time to advise the Budget Analyst how these cuts in personnel would 
affect current transit service levels. 

4. An amount of $50,000 for Materials and Supplies in the Transportation 
Division relates to the purchase of uniforms for transit drivers. According to MUNI, 
the payment for uniforms ordered this fiscal year will be deferred until the next 
fiscal year due to the inability of the uniform contractor to supply uniforms in a 
timely manner. This deferral of budgeted funds is not expected to have any impact 
on transit services. 

5. The Mayor also recommends budget cuts for positions not detailed 
totalling $61,112 including $34,925 ($27,500 salaries and $7,425 fringe benefits) in 
the Engineering and Administration Division and $26,187 ($20,619 salaries and 
$5,568 fringe benefits) in other divisions. 



Board of Supervisors - Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 2 - File 291-92-1 

Note: This item was recessed from the September 26, 1992 Finance Committee 

Meeting. 

This is a hearing to consider all special funds administered by the Controller. 

The attached August 31, 1992 report of the Controller provides information 

as to the City's Special Funds and the extent to which they may be available for 
transfer to the General Fund. The report also includes the Administrative Code 
sections which would have to be amended to effect transfer of each of these funds to 
the General Fund. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 

li 



.page l or n 

City and County of San Francisco Office of Controlle 




August 31, 1992 



Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 
235 City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Honorable Members: 

At the request of Supervisor Carole Migden, the Controller was 
requested to prepare a report of Special Funds in the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

Attached is a table which lists all funds on the books of the City, 
except funds set up for: 

- accounting convenience 

- capital/bond/grant projects 

- restricted trust, agency or gift funds 

The list is arranged in order by the city department primarily 
responsible for the operations of each fund. Also shown is the 
statutory authority creating the fund, its primary revenue source 
and the authority under which each fund may expend monies - by 
Board appropriation or continuing expenditure authority. 

Some of these funds, where their revenue sources are relatively 
stable and predictable are regularly included in the annual budget 
of the City. Funds with unstable or unpredictable sources are 
usually only appropriated when sufficient resources are available. 

Funds which have continuing expenditure authority are primarily 
those funds established to account for installation or inspection 
fees from the public for specific services performed. For example, 
DPW sewer installation fee deposits cover the cost of installing 
side sewers for property owners where the actual cost to install 
the sewer line cannot be determined until the work is completed. 
A deposit is received and the excess amount over cost is refunded. 
It would be quite cumbersome to have each deposit separately 
appropriated by the supplemental appropriation process. 



12 

Room 109. City Hall S an Franri*rr> Odin? 



Atta chment 
Finance Committee Page ~T~ oT~4 

August 31, 1992 



Supervisor Migden also requested information on the availability of 
special fund balances for possible transfer to the General Fund. 
The list shows few significant uncommitted resources available 
which could be used by the General Fund. For example, the Hotel 
Tax allocation formula contained in Municipal Code Section 515 
could be altered by the Board so that the War Memorial did not 
receive the 10 percent share of these revenues it currently enjoys. 
However, if this were to occur, it would severely impact the 
operations of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center. 

To comply with the Supervisor's request, where there appears to be 
no statutory bar to a transfer we have indicated that the fund 
could be reprogrammed even though there may be ongoing departmental 
operations and programs funded from the current special fund 
allocation. We recommend further analysis of possible program or 
policy considerations before any transfers are recommended. 

There are differences between the cash balance at August 21 and 
available resources balance at June 30. These occur because of 
timing differences, transactions recorded between the two dates and 
the fact that resources may be received and obligations incurred 
which can affect fund balances independently of the receipt or 
disbursement of cash. Balances for cash and fund balance were 
shown to be responsive to your request however, they do not 
necessarily represent precise amounts which could possibly be 
transferred to the General Fund. 

I will be happy to provide whatever additional information you 
might find helpful. 



Very truly 




Edward Harringl 
Controller 



cc: Budget Analyst 



Spec . 



13 



stsis|s|s|sis|g|gls|s|s|g|g|s|^^s|g|ijs|s|§j^§|i 



«S3S t>SS3 



CI OJ CM 04 CJ 




Attachment 
Page 3 of A 



|ojdJqo|o|olo|r>|ojojo|o|ojojo|ojcTJr)|ojnjrijo 



Page 4 of 4 



5| - - o«5«3$ 

< < g CM CM CM CM „ . : _ . 

> z H»".V - V- -..' ■ i,"-"' 

< uj ui : 




S"5 

Bill 

III! 

i" 5 o 5 5 o 

IgSfli 

" s s i $ s 

Z>3 3 3D 



15 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Items 3. 4. 5 and 6 - Files 100-92-6. 100-92-6.1. 97-92-57. and 97-92-57.1 

Note: These items were recessed from the September 26, 1992 Finance 
Committee Meeting 

Items: Hearing (File 100-92-6) to consider a review of the City's 

General Fund expenditures and policy on the use of City- 
owned automobiles. 

Ordinance (File 92-92-57) amending Chapter 21 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Sections 21.18-4 
and 21.18-5 to guide and limit the Purchaser's purchase, 
lease, and procurement of vehicles for use by officials and 
employees of Departments of the City and County, 
requiring the procurement of the most economical vehicle 
available for that purpose and exempting mass transit 
vehicles. 

Resolution (File 100-92-6.1) urging the Mayor to include in 
Budget Instructions to the various Departments 
information regarding Board policy on procurement of 
vehicles and informing City Departments that the Board 
will disapprove budget requests for authorization of 
procurements of vehicles for City Departments absent a 
sufficient showing of need for said vehicle. 

Draft motion (File 97-92-57.1) requiring return of cars 
owned or leased in violation of the Adniinistrative Code and 
directing the Clerk of the Board to instruct the Controller 
to declare an offset against employees found to be in 
violation of Section 4.11b of the Administrative Code. 

Description: On August 4, 1992, the Budget Analyst issued a report 

showing estimated 1991-92 and 1992-93 General Fund 
expenditures for automotive vehicles and related costs. In 
1992-93, total costs are budgeted at $7,135,423, including 
$5,435,713 for emergency vehicles and $1,699,710 for non- 
emergency vehicles. These expenditures reflect costs for 
the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of City 
vehicles, and also included $348,260 to reimburse City 
employees for the use of their private vehicles. 

The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-57) would amend 
Chapter 21 of the Administrative Code by adding Sections 
21.18-4 and 21.18-5 to guide and limit the Purchaser's 
purchase, lease and other procurement of vehicles for use 
by officials and employees of City Departments. 
Specifically, the proposed ordinance would require the 
Purchaser to purchase the most economical vehicle that 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



would serve the purpose for which the vehicle purchase is 
approved. The proposed legislation defines "economical" to 
include price, durability, fuel efficiency, resale value, 
expected repair and maintenance cost, and all other factors, 
including options and accessories, that may enhance the 
safety and resale value of the vehicle and impact the total 
cost of the vehicle to the City. The proposed ordinance 
would further prohibit the Purchaser from authorizing the 
inclusion of options or accessories on any procured vehicles, 
unless the Department has demonstrated, and the 
Purchaser has determined, that the requested options are 
necessary. 

According to the proposed legislation, the ordinance is 
intended: (1) to halt the use by City Departments of 
vehicles that are more expensive than necessary for the 
functions related to the duties of the officers and employees 
using the vehicles; (2) to ensure that vehicles procured by 
the City comply with acceptable standards regarding fuel 
consumption; and (3) to ensure that the City does not 
purchase vehicles that are not necessary for the effective 
performance of their duties. 

The proposed resolution (File 100-92-6.1) would urge the 
Mayor to include in his Budget Instructions information 
regarding the Board of Supervisor's policy regarding vehicle 
procurement. The proposed resolution further urges the 
Mayor to advise City departments that the Board of 
Supervisors would disapprove budget requests for 
authorization of procurements of vehicles, unless the 
departments can provide sufficient demonstration of need 
for such a vehicle. 

Currently, Section 4.10-1 of the Administrative Code 
governs the assignment of City vehicles to City employees. 
It states that the Purchaser, with the approval of the Chief 
Administrative Officer, may assign a vehicle to a 
department head for use by the department for authorized 
purposes. Section 4.11 states that the Purchaser shall not 
assign a vehicle to "an individual officer or employee unless 
a written request justifying the need for personal 
assignment is made by the head of [the] department and 
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer." 

Administrative Code Section 4.11 includes the following 
provisions concerning the use of City vehicles by City 
employees: 

• City vehicles shall be used "only in the discharge and 
transaction of municipal business." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



Comments: 



• Use of a City vehicle by a City employee must be 
authorized by the Department head. 

• Assignment of a vehicle to a specific employee by the 
Purchaser must be justified in writing by the head of 
the employee's Department and approved by the Chief 
Administrative Officer. 

• The use of City vehicles for travel to and from an 
employee's place of residence is prohibited except in 
limited circumstances involving work assignments 
before or after normal working hours only by 
employees who reside outside of San Francisco. 
Exceptions are made for Police, Sheriff, and 
Emergency Service Department employees who are 
authorized to use vehicles equipped with emergency 
equipment, subject to guidelines issued by the Chief of 
Police, Sheriff, and Director of Emergency Services. 
These Departments are required to maintain detailed 
records concerning the use of the emergency-equipped 
vehicles by departmental employees. 

Administrative Code Section 4.11 provides that employees 
who violate these provisions shall pay a penalty equal to 3 
times the City's mileage reimbursement rate, times the 
number of miles travelled in violation of the statutory 
provisions. The proposed Draft Motion (File 97-92-57.1) 
would require that City officials and employees who are 
currently using City vehicles for personal use in violation of 
the City's Administrative Code return those cars, and that 
the Clerk of the Board instruct the Controller to recover all 
penalties due to the City. According to the proposed Motion, 
the wages of employees in violation of Section 4.11 would be 
offset to recover three times the City's mileage 
reimbursement rate times the number of miles driven for 
personal use. 

Procurement 

1. The Purchasing Department indicates that vehicles are 
procured and assigned to Departments based on annual 
appropriations for such purchases made by the Board of 
Supervisors. According to the Purchasing Department, all 
vehicles are obtained from the lowest responsive bidder and 
are therefore obtained at least cost, for the types of vehicles 
which are included in the City's vehicle requisitions. 

2. The Purchasing Department reports that it encourages 
departments to purchase compacts and subcompacts; 
however, if departments specify and have budget approval 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



for a larger vehicle, the larger vehicle is purchased. 
According to the Purchasing Department, a vehicle 
requisition includes the vehicle make and model which is 
requested based on the department's performance 
requirements. According to the Purchasing Department, 
"Purchasing seeks acceptable substitutes, in the accepting 
department's size range, in conformance with Charter- 
mandated competitive bidding requirements." 

The Purchasing Department further reports that it has 
standard specifications for the features to be included with 
compact and sub-compact automobiles, and that air 
conditioning, tape decks, tilt steering wheels, cruise control, 
privacy glass, car telephones, specials wheels or hubcaps, 
and overdrive are not considered part of the standard 
specifications. 

The Purchasing Department does not have such standard 
specifications for options and accessories for full-size cars 
because the Department reports that these vehicles are 
purchased only for special purposes. 

3. Mr. Marvin Geistlinger, Director of Purchasing, states 
that his department is not an appropriate agency to 
evaluate departments' justifications for specific types of 
vehicles, including individual options and accessories, since 
these relate to the functional requirements of the 
automobile. Such functional requirements should be 
evaluated in the context of a specific program or 
departmental operation, according to Mr. Geistlinger, when 
departmental budget requests are submitted to the Mayor 
or in the course of budget hearings by the Board of 
Supervisors. Mr. Geistlinger states that, in his opinion, the 
function of the Purchasing Department should be to procure 
and deliver vehicles which have been justified and specified 
through the appropriation process. 

Mr. Geistlinger believes that if the Purchasing Department 
were required to evaluate and document departments' 
justifications for a specific type of vehicle or vehicle 
accessory, it would be necessary for him to hire additional 
staff. Mr. Geistlinger is unable to estimate at this time 
what additional resources the Purchasing Department 
would need to perform such responsibilities. 

4. In response to reports of abuses published in the 
September 24, 1992 edition of the San Francisco Examiner , 
the Purchasing Department has recently reviewed certain 
vehicle requisitions for the Municipal Railway, Public 
Utilities Commission and the Department of Public Works. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



The Purchasing Department reports that justifications 
were provided by these departments for each of the vehicle 
options which were cited in the Examiner report, except for 
an automobile purchased for the Housing Authority. The 
Purchasing Department reports that the Housing Authority 
has its own procurement department and does not use the 
City's purchasing procedures. 

5. The Purchasing Department reports that purchase 
orders for vehicles are filled subject to certification by the 
Controller that funds have been appropriated and are 
available. In the case of General Fund appropriations, the 
Purchasing Department will verify that funds have been 
appropriated for the purchase of the vehicle. However, the 
Purchasing Department indicates that funds made 
available through grants or other sources which are not 
included in the City's annual budget cannot be 
independently verified. In such instances, the Purchasing 
Department will fill the purchase order, subject to the 
Controller's certification, without verifying that funds have 
been appropriated. 

Assignment 

6. The Purchasing Department reports that vehicles are 
ordinarily delivered to departments which order the vehicle 
for use by members of the department. The Purchasing 
Department does not otherwise "assign" City vehicles 
across departments. The Purchasing Department is not 
aware of any vehicles which have been assigned to 
individual officers or employees of the City in recent 
memory. 

According to Mr. Geistlinger, the Purchasing Department is 
involved only in procuring and delivering requisitioned 
vehicles, and does not oversee the use of City-owned 
vehicles by City employees once they are delivered to the 
Departments. The Budget Analyst notes that Section 
4.11(b)(4) of the Administrative Code states that 
departments are required to maintain detailed records of 
employees' use of City-owned vehicles, but beyond that does 
not assign oversight responsibility to any City agency. 

7. The proposed resolution urges the Mayor to include a 
request for information concerning procurement and 
operation of City vehicles in the Mayor's annual budget 
instructions. The Mayor's budget instructions for 1992-93 
directed departments to provide "an itemized list of all 
vehicles [indicating] which vehicles are taken home by 
employees and whether vehicles are used as a pool." A copy 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



of this request from the Mayor's 1992-93 Budget Instruction 
Manual is included as Attachment 1 to this report. 

8. The Mayor's Office has recently undertaken a survey of 
City Departments concerning the use of City vehicles. In a 
memorandum dated August 3, 1992, the Mayor's Budget 
Directors requested that all departments provide 
information concerning the use of City-owned vehicles and 
the costs of parking employee-owned and City-owned 
vehicles. Mr. Neal Tanaguchi of the Mayor's Office reports 
that the survey results have not been tabulated, and 
therefore the statistics from the survey are not yet 
available. Copies of the Budget Directors' memorandum of 
August 3, 1992 and the survey document are included as 
Attachment 2 to this report. 

Mr. Tanaguchi reports that some departments assign 
vehicles to specific employees, whereas other departments 
pool their vehicles. In some cases, more vehicles may be 
assigned to employees than is necessary. For example, Mr. 
Tanaguchi reports that the Bureau of Building Inspection 
has 13 vehicles assigned to 13 Building Inspectors, and it 
has not been determined whether each building inspector 
needs a vehicle every day. 

9. In a Management Audit of the Operations of the San 
Francisco Automotive Fleet and the Central Shops Division 
of the Purchasing Department, dated July, 1979, the 
Budget Analyst reported that more effective use of City 
vehicles would result from pooling the vehicles, rather than 
assigning them on an individual departmental basis. 

The Budget Analyst reported in 1979 that the vehicle fleet 
could be reduced from 303 to 243 vehicles, or 19.8 percent, 
if the recommendation to pool City automobiles were 
adopted. Such an automotive pool is authorized under 
Section 4.12 of the Administrative Code, which was enacted 
in 1937, but has never been implemented. 

The City currently has an automotive fleet of 1,350 
automobiles. A list of the number of automobiles currently 
assigned to City departments is included as Attachment 3 
to this report. Excluding 491 Police Department 
automobiles, the number of City-owned automobiles is 
currently 859. A more detailed listing which was provided 
by the Purchasing Department shows the year, make, and 
model of each automobile assigned to each department. 
Information regarding the number of other vehicles in the 
City's fleet was not available as of the writing of this report. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



In 1979, the Budget Analyst recommended use of a garage 
under the Department of Public Health with a capacity of 
50 vehicles during business hours and 80 vehicles 
overnight, with overflow directed to the Civic Center 
garage. The Budget Analyst notes that use of the Civic 
Center garage to house City-owned vehicles would decrease 
the amount of revenue which could be collected by the City 
from private use of the garage. 

Mr. Geistlinger concurs that an automotive pool may 
represent a more cost effective use of the City's vehicles, but 
that logistical problems related to parking and servicing a 
large fleet of vehicles in the Civic Center area have 
obstructed implementation of this recommendation. Based 
on the Budget Analyst's recommendations, in 1980 the 
Purchasing Department recommended to the Finance 
Committee the establishment of a City automotive pool, but 
advised the Finance Committee that parking space for City 
vehicles at Civic Center was limited. The recommendation 
was not adopted, according to Mr. Geistlinger. 

Personal Use of City Vehicles 

10. The proposed Draft Motion instructs the Controller to 
declare an offset against employees found to be in violation 
of the City's prohibition on personal use of City vehicles. 
However, there appears to be no centralized oversight of the 
use of City vehicles by City employees. The Administrative 
Code assigns this responsibility to individual Department 
heads, with records to be open for inspection by the Mayor's 
Office and the Board of Supervisors. Thus, the extent to 
which City employees commute to and from their homes 
using City vehicles must be ascertained on a Departmental 
level. 

The Controller, Mr. Ed Harrington, reports that since 
provision of an automobile for private use is an employee 
benefit for tax purposes, the City currently attributes $3.00 
of imputed income to employees who use City-owned 
vehicles to commute to their homes. Taxes are then 
deducted on the $3.00 value of the benefit. Mr. Harrington 
reports that on September 28, 1992 he directed his staff to 
audit the City's payroll records to determine the extent to 
which City employees have reported their personal use of 
City-owned vehicles for commuting purposes. 

The extent to which employees are reporting their private 
use of City-owned automobiles is not known. If violations of 
the Administrative Code are identified, Mr. Harrington 
reports that his office currently has the capability to apply 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

offsets of employees' salaries or wages to collect the 
penalties allowed under the Administrative Code. 

11. Mr. Tanaguchi, based on preliminary survey results, 
reports that departments may permit employees to take 
City vehicles home because of a perceived lack of adequate 
overnight parking and security problems associated with 
leaving the vehicles unattended overnight at the job sites. 

12. The Budget Analyst, in the July, 1979 Management 
Audit, estimated that City vehicles were driven 478,836 
additional miles due to trips to their homes by City 
employees. This finding was issued prior to enactment of 
the Administrative Code provisions prohibiting this 
practice, although the use of City-owned cars by City 
employees to commute to work apparantly has continued. 

It is not known the extent to which this mileage figure may 
have decreased since 1979 due to the prohibition of this 
practice, or may have increased due to changes in 
residential patterns or increases in the number of vehicles. 
For purposes of illustration, if the number of commute 
miles driven by employees has not changed since 1979, then 
the annual cost to the City based on 478,836 annual miles 
and the current mileage reimbursement rate of $.22 per 
mile would be $105,344. 

Recommendations: 1. Since the City may lack adequate parking facilities for 
City-owned vehicles which are driven to and from work, the 
proposed Draft Motion (File 97-92-57.1), instructing the 
Controller to declare an offset against City employees who 
operate City-owned vehicles to commute to work, except as 
provided in the Administrative Code, is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution (File No. 100-92-6.1), 
which provides for specific justification by departments and 
closer scrutiny by the Board of Supervisors of vehicle 
purchases. 

3. Since the Director of Purchasing reports that his 
Department is not an appropriate agency to review 
departmental justifications for the purchase of specific 
vehicles, the proposed ordinance (File No. 97-92-57), which 
would require the Purchaser to evaluate the necessity for 
vehicles options or accessories requested by City 
Departments, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



from MAYOR'S BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS. 1992-93 """ 

estimated cost oTSch !p*^™J"^T%noutl£e contractor, or a city 

^ Automr^yejg^^. ■ <*&£*£*£%£ £, USIhSidhdte^ 
# ^cT^cIS SgSiSSSStt^SSSSiS whether veNc.es ore used 

as a pool. 

A.. Genera. Fund V£^SSSS^S %S%^^^$ 
exceptipn_olJ|r^^ vans Qf ££ ( to 

additional or re^acement av^om^le^^on^ ^ Request Form" on 

and including ,3/4 ton trucks). to . ^^^^S,, Vehicle Request Forms for 
SSSScSSSSXd lo ?ne n c\ a !i!e^r^e e vehide appears to meet the need 
documented by the department. 

. -.. n , x// ^Kii-io k returned to the department after review. 

^S^^^^S^t^^ request the deportment's 

budget. 

A request for a *&°™£tt£&£tt&£ESZ& 
budget request. ^ rf „^? , ^ Y r^cSv«VeNcle Acquisition. The 
S^^1ffiS2^^t&53?£S£* Form to an departments. 

equipment in their own budgets. 

At, vehides requested to »»»f'g£*5a*SS£ ."SSStfEStS 

them in the budget for deportment #91-200). 

Thfe precede wi.l <^^ a^ojna^ e^grjen. ^*££*§££ 

S&SSt ^cS^to^SSc^^S^im^s own budget. 

It is printed here for reference: 

-. . . Where W^A^J^^-^^ 
be surrendered to the lAJrcnasei o ° £T . . f ^g new automotive 
service on or before del. very »° !^£^ e £* ? n (^ c f being traded in. 

S?*25£ fc , 33lS e d ^ted d .o^eTnoppfopiateo balance oflhe related 
the proceeds shall oe ae P^^^ . f •-£.. Droce eds as may be required 

re d f,ec,°m d e e ^-chore Ve J/ rnfwTq^m^isVreby appropriated fo, the 



purpose. 

2k 



FROM: OMNI FAX CI) 



Office of the Mayor 
San Francisco 



TO: 



415 252 0461 




TO: 



FR: 



RE: 



Department Heads 

Teresa Serata / Jean Mariani 

Parking and vehicle survey 



SEP 28. 1992 11 :54AM 8592 

File 100-92-6 
Attachment 2 

PRANK M. JORDAN 



P. 02 



August 3, 1992 



Th e Mayor, Office is in ^^^StSS^^S^S 



If you have any. questions, please call at 554-6165. 



»o crrv hau. Ian niANCisco. ouporma »«» 



25 



FR0M:0MN1R*C» ™: 415 252 04S1 SEP 28. 1992 11:55PM «592 P.03 



City Vehicle and Parking Survey 
The Mayor's Office is I» &^JS££*52&tt&ZX 

!. Does your department maintain and operate city-owned vemeles? 

If yes, How many? 



Where does the department park its city-owned vehicles? 

For each vehicle owned I by th^g^Sdte JSMfflt! 
S5^££fcfiS2?S 3C4S fr- note that this 
list does not include trucks and vans. 

Replacement 



reason? How Frequent? 



^^j^s^sOKSs^Jrssi^ 



from home 



26 



FROM : OMN I FAX C 1 ) TO: 415 252 0461 SEP 28. 1992 11:55PM 0592 P. 04 



2. Does your department provide employee parking? 



Where do your employees park their cars? Pick one: 

.) Garage b) Parking lots Sidewalk d)Curb«de e) other (please specify) 



If the department provides parking, please estimat e the number of spaces 

provided. > 

Does your department pay for parking for City-owned vehicles? 



Does your department pay for parking for employees w ho drive their 
vehicles to work? . — 



If yes, what is the amount budgeted for parking in 1992-93? _ 

What proportion of the total spaces provided is parkin g purchased by the 
department? . — ~ ' 



Do any of your department employees use their vehicles for cit y business? 
How many? Please specify _ — ~ 



Have you ever received complaints about employees parkin g in the 
neighborhoods? Explain: _ — " 






Mease return this survey to Neal Taniguchi. Room 205 City Hall, before August 19, 
1992. Please call at 554-6165, if you hove any questions. 



NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES 
ASSIGNED TO CITY DEPARTMENTS 



Attachment 3 



19/92 



CITY DEPARTMENT LIST 



; age i 



Dept name 



ADULT PROBATION 

ART COMMISSION 

ASSESSOR 

CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY PLANNING 

CIVIL SERVICE 

CONTROLLER 

EMERGENCY SERVICES 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

FAMILY SUPPORT BUREAU 

FIRE DEPARTMENT 

YOUTH PARK FOUNDATION 

MAYOR'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

PARKING & TRAFFIC CONTROL 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF CITIZENS COMPLAINT 

PUBLIC DEFENDER 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 

SUPERIOR COURT 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

JUVENILE COURT 

JUVENILE COURT.LOG CABIN 

MOSCONE CONVENTION CENTER :^ yf^P: 

CAO WASTE MANAGEMENT 

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL 

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 

CORONER 

DEPT. OF ELECT. & TELECOMM 

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR • 

DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE 

REGISTRAR 

TAX COLLECTOR 

WEIGHTS & MEASURES/AGRICULTURE 

PURCHASING MAIN OFFICE 

PURCHASING CENTRAL SHOPS 

3PW ARCH] TFCTURE 

DPW BUILDING INSPECTION 

DPW BUILDING REPAIR 

DPW SUBDIVISIONS, SURVEYS & MAPS 

DPW ENGINEERING 

DPW CONSTRUCTION MGMT . 

DPW GENERAL OFFICE 

DPW PERSONNEL 

DPW WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 

DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION & MGMT 

DPW SEWER REPAIR 

DPW STREET CLEANING 

PUBLIC CONSERVATOR 

PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 



6 

10 


3 
2 

1 
1 
1 

30 

3 
69 



2 

17 

491 

4 

4 
55 
38 



1 
18 

0" 

&; 

1 

2 

6 

1 

2 

9 

3 

1 



3 

2 

5 

8 

9 
48 

6 

2 
25 

6 

6 

2 

6 

2 



1 

6 



28 



7 /29 / 9T' 



CI TV DEPARTMENT LIST 



Paae 



Dept no Dept name 



531 
535 
537 
551 
555 
557 
567 
530 
621 
631 
651 
653 
661 
669 
6S1 
682 
683 
686 
705 
725 
735 
745 
755 
775 
785^ 



PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

PUBLIC HEALTH CENTERS 

PUBLIC HEALTH MAP PROGRAM 

PUBLIC HEALTH PARAMEDIC SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL 

PUBLIC HEALTH GENERAL HOSPITAL 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM 

PUBLIC HEALTH FORENSIC SERVICES 

FINE ARTS MUSUEM 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

RECREATION & PARKS 

CANDLESTICK PARK 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

CITY COLLEGE 

DPW STREET REPAIR 

DPW SIGNAL MAINTENANCE * INACTIVE 

DPW TRAFFIC ENGINEERING * INACTIVE 

DPW LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE * INACTIVE 

PUBLIC -UTILITIES COMMISSION 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

MUNI RAILWAY 

WATER DEPARTMENT 

HETCH-HETCHY 

PORT COMMISSION . 

S.FJ HOUSING AUTHORITY ;* ':'" V ■ 

Total : 



33 

4 

3 



6 

10 

17 

1 



2 

17 



10 

6 

3 







27 

62 

92 

67 

23 

21 

" -34 

1,350 



29 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 7 - File 205-92-3 

Note: This item was recessed from the September 26, 1992 Finance 
Committee Meeting. 

1. This is a hearing to consider a "Voluntary Release" program for employees 
of the City and County of San Francisco as a cost saving item for this year's revised 
budget. 

2. A voluntary release program has been used in the County of Santa Clara 
for approximately ten years. Known as the Voluntary Reduced Work Hours 
Program, rules for operation of the Santa Clara program are established in 
memoranda of understanding with employee bargaining agreements. The purpose of 
the Program is to reduce work hours and a commensurate amount of pay on a 
voluntary basis. Key elements of the program are as follows: 

• Workers may elect a two and one-half percent (2 1/2%), five percent (5%), 
ten per cent (10%), or twenty percent (20%) reduction in pay for a 
commensurate amount of time off for a six (6) month period. Admission 
to the plan will be at six (6) month intervals - March and September. The 
parties shall meet and agree upon the beginning date for the Program. 

• All persons in the Program will revert to their former status at the end 
of six (6) months. If a worker transfers, promotes, demotes, terminates, 
or in any other way vacates or reduces his/her present code 
(classification), he/she will be removed from the Program for the balance 
of the six (6) month period. 

• Participation in this Program shall be my mutual agreement between 
the worker and the department/agency head. At no time will approval be 
given if it results in overtime. Restrictions by Department/ Agencies 
within work units shall be uniformly applied. 

• It is understood by the County that due to this Program there may be 
lower levels of service. 

• All workers will be notified in writing regarding the Program specifics 
and the sign-up options. Such written notice to be mutually agreed upon 
by the parties. 

3. Approximately 500 of Santa Clara County's employees participate in this 
program (i.e. 3.4% of the total filled positions of approximately 14,800). The program 
is primarily viewed as an employee benefit, and employees must elect to participate 
in the program. Managers cannot unilaterally assign reduced work hours in order to 
reduce spending. Savings due to this program are not included in the Santa Clara 
County annual budget. 



30 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Comments : 

1. The Mayor's proposed revisions to the 1992-93 budget include assumed 
savings from work furlough of certain employees in some of the departmental 
budgets that are to be reduced. The Budget Analyst is reviewing the Mayor's 
recommended revisions on a department-by-department basis and will issue a 
report on the recommended budget revisions on September 24, 1992. 

2. The Mayor's Employee Relations Division (ERD) is currently meeting and 
conferring with union representatives on work furlough issues and a proposed Civil 
Service rule change that would enable department appointing officers to furlough 
non-essential employees unilaterally in order to achieve required budget savings. 

3. The extent to which a Voluntary Release program would result in 
additional budgetary savings would depend on the number of employees who would 
participate in the program and resulting savings that could be achieved over and 
above current salary savings and work furlough savings now required in various 
departmental budgets. We therefore cannot estimate such savings at this time. 



31 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 

Item 8 -File 161-92-4.1 

Note: This item was recessed at the September 26, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Resubmission of the SFRA's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget to the 

Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992 for reconsideration 
in light of the fiscal impacts to the SFRA and to the City's 
General Fund that have resulted from the final adoption of 
the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget of the State of California. 

Description: During its review of the Redevelopment Agency's FY 1992-93 

budget in August of 1992, the Board of Supervisors amended 
the Agency's Budget to require the Agency to resubmit its 
budget to the Board of Supervisors by September 1, 1992. The 
Board of Supervisors wanted to reconsider the Agency's 
budget when the impact on the City from the State budget 
reductions were known. This item was continued by the 
Finance Committee because the State budget had not been 
adopted. 

According to the SFRA, State legislation recently passed and 
signed by the Governor requires Redevelopment Agencies to 
pass through to the San Francisco Unified School District 
and the San Francisco Community College District 
approximately 16 percent of their 1990-91 tax increment 
revenues. However, the SFRA reports that there are 
currently varying interpretations as to whether this liability 
includes property taxes from Redevelopment Project Areas 
totalling $1,255,151 already paid to the Districts in FY 1990-91. 
According to the SFRA, if the liability does not include this 
amount, the SFRA will have to pay the San Francisco Unified 
School District and the San Francisco Community College 
District a total of $3,168,271. If this amount is reduced by 
$1,255,151 for the amounts already provided to these Districts, 
the remaining liability would be $1,913,120. According to Mr. 
Bob Gamble of the SFRA, the amount of either $3,168,271 or 
$1,913,120 represents a one-time obligation that the SFRA is 
required to pay in May of 1993. According to Mr. Gamble, a 
list of the Redevelopment Agencies' liabilities will be provided 
to the SFRA by the State's Director of Finance on October 1, 
1992. 

Mr. Gamble reports that the SFRA does not at this time know 
which budget reductions it will take to meet its obligation. As 
noted above, the SFRA has until May of 1993 to decide which 
spending reductions to make. However, Mr. Gamble advises 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Recessed Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



that the SFRA will be making the necessary expenditure 
reductions sometime during October of 1992. 

In addition to the State's cuts, the Mayor's Office is 
requesting that the SFRA postpone half of its debt service 
from 1992-93 tax increment bonds or $2.5 million until FY 
1993-94. Approximately 87 percent of tax increment revenues 
used to repay tax increment bonds is General Fund monies. 
Thus, postponing half of its debt service would result in 
approximately $2.2 million in General Fund savings during 
FY 1992-93 and increase General Fund expenditures by 
approximately $2.2 million in FY 1993-94. 

1. The proposed postponement of debt service payment would 
act as a no interest loan to the City to be repaid during FY 
1993-94. 

2. In his message transmitting amendments to meet the 
City's budget deficit, the Mayor proposed to make 
adjustments on revenues and reserves in non-General Fund 
departments (Airport, Port and Redevelopment Agency) 
totalling $28 million. The proposed budget amendments 
transfer $1.0 million from Port reserves (See Item 1, File 101- 
92-7). The details relating to the Airport and Redevelopment 
Agency have not yet been finalized. 

Approval of any amendment to the Redevelopment Agency 
budget is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 



Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



(public Library, (Documents (Dcpt. 
-^ SVFBk Gcrru%gtk 



Department: 

1 1 2, gucfoef Date 

/ Total Expenditures 

Net General Fund Expenditures 

Department Revenue 

Total Authorized Permanent Positions 

Funded Positions (FTE) 

including permanent salaries, net of salary 

savings; temporary salaries, overtime, EWW 

Estimated number of layoffs 



Budget Revision Summary 

40 Public Utilities Commission 



/ 992-93 Budget as Mayor's Proposed Revised Budget as 



Adopted 



$44,206,454 



($332,256) 



558 



540 



Revisions Re commended by the 



($1,517,362) 



($1,517,362) 



46 



46 



46 



Mayor 



$42,689,092 



($1,849,618) 



512 



494 



Description of Impact on Services : 

The proposed budget reductions for the Public Utilities Commission total $1,517,362 for 
the PUC bureaus in personnel and overhead accounts. An additional $975,000 in reduced costs 
resulting from a Work Furlough Program is budgeted for the MUNI and the PUC. 

PUC - General Manager 



No. of 




Positions 




Deleted 


Amount 


Sub Obj 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries. 




1404 A Clerk 1 


$13,385 


1760 A Offset Mach. Operator 1 


14,763 


1778 A Reproduction Services 1 


21,532 


1824 A Principal Analyst 1 


28,250 


8121 A Investigative Protective Services 1 


26,136 


8221 A Chief, Protection Svcs. 1 


39,765 


Mandatory Fringe Svgs. 


35,841 


Obj 109 Security Contract 


100,000 


Obj 109 Reproduction Contract 


50,000 


Subtotal PUC - General Mgr. 6 


$329,672 


* Grant funded position 




DOCUMENTS REPT. 




OCT 1 1992 




SAN FRANCISCO 




PUBLIC LIBRARY 





Board of Supervisors - B 

2 



Department : 
page 2 



40 - Public Utilities Commission 



Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Impairs liaison with outside investigative agencies. 

Eliminates maintenance of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental 
Design (CPTED) computerized security system. 

PUC - Finance 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 
1426 A Sr. Clk Typist 
1454 A Exec Secty III 
1656 A Head Accountant 
1675 A Sup. Fiscal Officer 
1824 A Prin. Admin Analyst 
9158 A Asst. Claims Agent 
Mandatory Fringe Svgs 

Subtotal PUC-Finance 7 

Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Delays in audit completions will jeopardize Muni's federal, state, 
and local grants. 

Unable to adequately maintain fixed assets system. 

General slowdown in processing accounting documents. 

Increased span of control for the General Claims Agent. 

PUC - BMIS 



No. of 




Positions 




Deleted 


Amount 


1 


$16,378 


1 


19,823 


1 


26,899 


1 


33,021 


2 


56,883 


1 


39,914 




48.230 



No. of 
Positions 
Deleted Amount 



Sub Obj 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1739 A Computer Operations Supvr. II 
1860 A Computer Operations Support 
1877 A Supv Systems Programming 
1880 A Chief of Systems 
Mandatory Fringe Svgs 
Sub Obj 1240 DP Equipment 
Total PUC - BMIS 



$24,361 
22,170 
36,146 
64,927 
36,901 
50.000 



$241,148 



$234,505 



board of Supervisors - Budget analyst 

3 



Department : 40 - Public Utilities Commission 

page 3 

Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Delay in implementing Muni's office automation program. 

Delay in implementing electronic mail and purchasing requisitions 
system. 

PUC - Utility Engineering 

09499 PUC Personnel Fund 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1222 A Sr Pay/Pers Clk 

1404 A Clerk 

1426 A SrClk-Typist 

1446 A Secretary II 

1452 A Exec Secty I 

1630 A Account Clk 

1842 A Management Asst. 

1844 A SrMgmtAsst 

1880 A Chief of Systems 

5210 A Sr Civil Engr 

5212 A PrinEngr 

5238 A Assoc. Electrical Eng. 

9748 A Staff Assistant VHI 

9758 A Staff Assistant XIII 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal PUC-UEB 

Subtotal PUC-UEB net of project-funded positions 

($125,301 plus fringe benefits of $31,319) (156.620) $546,661 

Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Eliminates 23 positions without affecting the core operations of the Bureau. 

** Project funded position 



. No. of 




Positions 




Deleted 


Amount 


1 


$19,512 


1 


10,256 


4 


61,304 


4 


70,278 


1 


24,424 


2 


35,139 


1 


22,485 


1 


23,423 


1 


39,790 


1 


39,804 


2 


90,909 


1 


29,993** 


2 


43,682** 


1 


51,626** 




140.656 


23 : 


$703,281 



Board of Supervisors - Budget analyst 



Department : 40 - Public Utilities Commission 

page 4 



PUC - Personnel 



No. of 




Positions 
Deleted 


Amount 


2 


$45,949 


1 


29,258 


1 


40,559 


1 


16,535 




33,075 



Sub Obi 0010 Misc. Perm Salaries 

1233 A Affirmative Action Spec 
1244 A Sr. Pers. Officer 
1272 A Sr. Dept. Pers.- Officer 
1426 A Sr. Clk Typist 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal - PUC Personnel 5 $165.376 

Impact on Services (According to PUC) 

Diminished capacity to assist in recruiting, conducting AA/EEO 
training and processing discrimination complaints. 

Reduced capacity to handle examinations for the Water 
Department and Hetch Hetchy. 

Downgrades the level of personnel management assigned to Muni. 

TOTAL PUC $1,517,362 

Recapitulation of Proposed Reductions for the PUC 





No. of 




Bureau 


Positions 


Amount 


General Manager 

Finance 

BMIS 

Utility Engineering 

Personnel 

Subtotal, Personnel 


6 

7 

5 
23 

5. 
46 


$329,672 
241,148 
234,505 
546,661 
165.376 
$1,517,362 


Comments 







1. The proposed budget reduction of $1,517,362 reduction includes contractual savings 
and Data Processing Equipment in the amount of $200,000. 

2. In addition to the proposed budget reduction of $1,517,362, the PUC and the MUNI 
would reduce their budgets in total by $975,000 through work furloughs. As of the writing of this 
report, the allocation between the MUNI and the PUC bureaus had not been decided upon. 
Based on data provided by the PUC indicating furloughs for all MUNI and PUC employees 
(Option 1 in the Attachment), a one day furlough would amount to a $750,290 savings of which 
$580,690 in salaries and fringe benefits would be borne by MUNI and $169,600 in salaries and 
fringe benefits would be borne by PUC, Water Department and Hetch Hetchy. Based on a 
$975,000 work furlough program, each employee would be furloughed 1.33 days and the total 

Board of Supervisors - budget analyst 

5 



Department : 40 - Public Utilities Commission 

page 5 

$975,000 would be divided $754,605 to MUNI and $220,395 to PUC, Water and Hetch Hetchy. 
The PUC is also considering other work furlough options that would include a volunteer program 
and a program that would (1) exempt personnel earning under $30,000 annually, and (2) exempt 
transit drivers and any other classifications that received time and a half pay for overtime. 

3. In addition to the foregoing budget reductions, the Water Department and Hetch 
Hetchy would each provide $2.5 million in equity transfers to the General Fund, for a total of $5 
million. The $5 million would replace the previously planned Muni service reductions ($3 
million) and Muni fare increases ($1.5 million) that will now not be implemented. The Water 
Department and Hetch Hetchy would obtain the $2.5 million each by cutting previously 
approved appropriations for major capital projects. 



Board of SUPERVISORS - Budgkt analyst 

6 



Attachr^ni 



Furloughs 

Muni Salaries (non-platform) 

New Cuts 
Subtotal 

Exempt Pos. 

50% of 9139 Transit Sup 
50% of 9140 and 9141 TM I and II 
25% of Maint. staff 
50% of Maint. staff 
Subtotal 

Muni Savings Per day 
Bureau Savings per day 
Fringe Benefits 
Total Savings per Day 

Drivers salaries (net) 
Drivers savings per day 
Fringe Benefits 
Total Savings- drivers 

Grand total savings per day 

Water 

Hetchy 

Total PUC savings per day 



Option 1 


Option 2 


Option 3 


$63,600,377 


$63,600,377 


$63,600,377 


($906,344) 


($906,344) 


($906,344) 


$62,694,033 


$62,694,033 


$62,694,033 




($4,581,049) 


($4,581,049) 




($1,910,541) 


($1,910,541) 




($10,634,539) 


($21,269,078) 




$45,567,905 


$34,933,366 


$239,290 


$173,923 


$133,333 


$65,000 


$65,000 


$65,000 


$73,030 


$57,342 


$47,600 


$377,320 


$296,265 


$245,933 




(2) 


(3) 


$60,000,000 






$229,008 






$54,962 






$283,970 






$661,290 






$64,000 






$25,000 






$750,290 






(1) 







(1) Assumes all PUC employees are furloughed and Water and Hetchy 
savings are transferred to General Fund. 

(2) Assumes all non-driving personnel are furloughed except 
25% of maintenance staff and 50% of transit supervisors and 
transit managers. No Water or Hetchy furloughs. 

(3) Assumes all non-driving personnel are furloughed except 
50% of maintenance staff and 50% of transit supervisors and 
transit managers. No Water or Hetchy furloughs. 



Department : 



ISED 

Budget Revision Summary 
35 Municipal Railway 

1 992-93 Budget as Mayor's Proposed Revised Budget as 



Adopted 



$272,925,479 



101,834,278 



171,091,201 



3,322 



3,181.7 



Revisions Recommended by the Mayor 



($2,009,134) 



$270,916,345 



(2,009,134) 



99,825,144 



171,091,201 



25 



3,297 



24.6 



3,157.1 



Budget Data 

Total Expenditures 

Net General Fund Expenditures 

Department Revenue 

Total Authorized Permanent Positions 

Funded Positions (FTE) 

including permanent salaries, net of salary 

savings; temporary salaries, overtime, EWW 

Estimated number of layoffs 

Description of Impact on Services : 

The Mayor's Proposed Revisions totalling $ 2,009,134 includes $1,254,529 in 
budget cuts to MUNI personnel and overhead costs and $754,605 in work furloughs 
for all MUNI administrative staff and transit drivers as follows: 

1. Cuts in Personnel and Overhead Costs related to Efficiencies 

Amount 



25 



No. of 
Positions 



Reduce Administration and Management 

Transportation Division 

1844 Senior Management Asst 
5289 Transit Planner HI 
9139 Transit Supervisor I 
9142 Transit Manager III 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits (25%) 
Materials and Supplies (Uniforms) 
Subtotal 



1 


$25,675 


1 


27,862 





80,767 





74,552 




52,214 




50.000 



$311,070 



Board of Supervisors - Budget Analyst 



Department : 35 Municipal Railway 

page 2 



Engineering and Administration Division 

1312 Public Information Offficer 
9188 Transit Equip Engineer 
5240 Electrical Engineer 
5256 Mechanical Engineer 
5346 Mechanical Eng Assoc I 
5268 Architect 
5354 Electrical Engineer 
5206 Associate Civil Engineer 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits (25%) 

Subtotal 7 282,829 

Maintenance Division 



1 


$19,960 


1 


44,131 


1 


34,713 


1 


34,713 


1 


22,916 





16,938 


1 


22,916 


1 


29,976 




56.566 



1630 


Account Clerk 


1 


$15,620 




1840 


Junior Management Asst 


1 


17,861 




1929 


Parts Storekeeper 


1 


19,110 




7329 


Elec Main Asst Supervisor 


1 


33,369 




7409 


Elec Tran Svc Worker 


2 


41,238 




7214 


Elec Trans Equip 


1 


39,385 




7262 


Maintenance Painter 


1 


24,721 




2718 


Custodian Supervisor I 


1 


18,361 




5364 


Civil Engineer Associate I 


1 


22,916 




7390 


Welder 


1 


23,824 




7318 


Elect Maintenance Tech 


2 


62,249 




7441 


Tool Room Mechanic 


1 


15,112 




Overtime 




90,975 




Holiday Pay 




59,763 




Mandatory Fringe Benefits (25%) 




121.126 




Subtotal 


14 




605,630 


Facilities Maintenance Fund 




$55,000 




Subtotal 






55,000 


Total Efficiency Reductions 


23 




$1,254,529 



2. Cuts related to Work Furlough Program 

The Mayor has recommended a work furlough program for both MUNI 
and PUC personnel totaling $975,000. At this time, the Mayor has not provided any 
information regarding which positions at MUNI and PUC would be included in the 
proposed work furlough program for these two departments. However, based on 
data provided by PUC that would require work furloughs for all MUNI and PUC 
employees (Option 1 to the Attachment in the PUC Section of this report), a one day 
work furlough would amount to a $750,290 savings of which $580,690 is MUNI 
salaries and fringe benefits and $169,600 is PUC, Water Department and Hetch 

Board of Supervisors - budget Analyst 

9 



Department : 35 Municipal Railway 

page 3 



Hetchy salaries and fringe benefits. Based on a $975,000 work furlough program, 
each employee would be furloughed 1.33 days and the total $975,000 would be 
divided between MUNI ($754,605) and PUC, Water and Hetch Hetchy ($220,395). 
PUC is also considering other furlough options that would include a volunteer 
program and a program that would (1) exempt personnel earning under $30,000 
annually and (2) exempt transit drivers and any other classifications that received 
time and a half pay for overtime. 

Comments 

1. In the Transportation Division, the elimination of Class 1844 would 
require additional work to be performed by the unit managers, the elimination of 
Class 5289 would delay bus stop relocation studies and revenue vehicle acquisition 
plans, elimination of 3 Class 9139s would reduce special events planning and the 
elimination of 2 Class 9142s would impair budget preparations and the completion 
of various reports. The 3 Class 9139s and the 2 Class 9142s would be defunded, but 
the position counts remain. If funding is available at at later time, Muni plans to 
request that these salaries be restored. 

2. According to MUNI, the impact of the personnel cuts in the Engineering 
and Administration Division would be minimal. MUNI is expected to transfer some 
of the positions, including Classes 9188, 5240, 5256, 5346, 5268, 5354 and 5206 to 
grant funding. Elimination of Class 1312 would reduce the production of schedules, 
brochures and other printed materials. Funding for Class 5268, Architect would be 
eliminated, but the position count would remain pending available funding at a 
later time. 

3. The Mayor has identifed several new position cuts to the Maintenance 
Division (Classes 2718, 5364, 7390, 7318 and 7441) which MUNI advises would 
have only a minimal effect on transit service. 

4. An amount of $50,000 for Materials and Supplies in the Transportation 
Division relates to the purchase of uniforms for transit drivers. According to MUNI, 
the payment for uniforms ordered this fiscal year will be deferred until the next 
fiscal year due to the inability of the uniform contractor to supply uniforms in a 
timely manner. This deferral of budgeted funds is not expected to have any impact 
on transit services. 

5. The Mayor also recommends budget cuts for overtime totalling $90,975 
and $59,763 for holiday pay in the Maintenance Division. In addition, there is a 
$55,000 transfer from the Facilities Maintenance Fund which is primarily used to 
work order funds to the Department of Public Works for facility repairs. MUNI 
advises that such repairs can be deferred until the next fiscal year. 



Board of Supervisors - Budget Analyst 

10 



(Public Library, (Documents CDcpt. 
WRfoQ Qe,rry%oth. 

CITY AND COUNTY ^ ^1 )*) OF SAN FRANCISCO 

/ /> xsSP'' DOCUMpmtc ncpj 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0CT 01 19 92 

SAN FRANCISCO 
BUDGET ANALYST PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

September 30, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: "Budget Analyst n^ca /* ^e/o^aJ/o^ 5 

SUBJECT: Budget Hotline 



At the request of the Finance Committee, the Budget Analyst has reviewed 
the responses to the Budget Hotline. 

Many of the suggestions related to public jurisdictions other than the City 
and County of San Francisco, some were illegal or inconsistent with current labor 
agreements and others were not sufficiently specific. Other suggestions related to 
increased enforcement of existing laws or imposing new laws to generate more 
revenues. The following suggestions were identified as having merit in increasing 
City revenues or reducing the City's expenditures: 

Department of Public Health (DPH) 

"Eliminate the Chief of Institutional Police at San Francisco General 
Hospital. A Captain is sufficient." 

Position has already been eliminated from the 1992-93 budget. 

"Billing for home health visits by the Home Health Agency is not 
being done adequately and we are losing Medi-Cal reimbursements." 

Home Health Agency is being eliminated by DPH in the 1992-93 
budget. 

"Have the department and the clinics take a week off at Christmas." 

This is part of DPH's current proposal. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 
Page 2 



"SFGH Kitchen department does not need both a Food Director and 
an Assistant Food Director. One of the chefs could do this job." 

The Department is proposing to delete 2 administrative positions in 
SFGH's food service operations. 

"Eliminate duplication in mental health clinics." 

DPH is proposing to close three clinics and consolidate the remaining 
clinics. 

"One or two centralized people should take the Health Center 
referrals and divide them up, rather than having people perform this 
tasks at each of the centers." 

The Health Department has began centralizing referral functions 
starting with HIV referrals. 

Police Department 

"Go back to 5-day 8-hour shifts instead of 4-day 10-hour shifts. Save 
$6 million." 

This recommendation will save money only if the number of officers 
employed by the Department is actually reduced. 

"Eliminate free cars for Captains, on up and free gas for Captains, on 
up. Saves the time of officers who fetch the gas for Captains. Cops 
who live out of town should pay their own way." 

The Budget Analyst has requested a copy of the Police Department's 
"take home list." The Department is preparing the list for the Budget 
Analyst. There is apparently no Department-wide policy regarding the 
assignment of vehicles to personnel on an around-the-clock basis. 
Rather, decisions are made by the Chief and Deputy Chiefs on a case- 
by-case basis. 

The Finance Committee could request that the Chief of Police provide a 
rationale and explanation for assignment of vehicles. 



"Combine 9 District Police Stations" 

The Budget Analyst agrees and has previously made such a 
recommendation. A Charter Amendment is required. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 
Page 3 



Fire Department 

"Eliminate drivers for fire captains and other brass." 



The Budget Analyst has recommended the elimination of the Chiefs 
Aides positions that are essentially drivers for Fire Department officers 
since performing a management audit of the department over ten years 
ago. Elimination of the 56 positions would save approximately $4.2 
million annually. 



All Departments 

"Establish a voluntary Time Off Program." 

Such programs are presently being considered by the Finance 
Committee. 



"Have all employees take four days off without pay." 

Mandatory employee furlough programs are being proposed by various 
department and the Budget Analyst is in the process of determining 
the effect of a City-wide furlough program for all nonessential 
employees. 

"Don't let employees take City cars home." 

This suggestion would reduce automobile acquisition, maintenance and 
fuel and lubricants costs. Related legislation on the use of City-owned 
cars is presently being considered by the Finance Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
September 30, 1992 
Page 4 



"No Free Fast passes to City Employees." 

MUNI issues free passes to MUNI & PUC employees, retirees and 
dependents of MUNI drivers. MUNI reports that 7,621 free passes are 
currently issued. Based on a $32 value for an adult monthly fast pass 
and a $5 value for a discount monthly fast pass for seniors and youths, 
the monthly value of these 7,621 passes is $182,339 and the annual 
value of these 7,621 passes is $2.2 million. 



/<*?// ^ 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






A LEND AR 



PLEASE NOTE THAT MEETING 
WILL BEGIN AT 3:00 P.M. 



DOCUMPMtc ncp-f 
OCT 01 1992 

v^C^PECIAL MEETING OF SAN FRANCISCO 

if^FTNANCE COMMITTEE PUBLIC LIBRARY 

^==BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



AY. OCTOBER 1. 1992 - 3:00 P.M. LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER 

2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



File 100-92-8 . Hearing to consider what City property might be sold or leased to 
help address the fiscal emergency. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



i ha 



TO: 
FROM: 



CITY AND COUNTY 



BC 




(public LiBrary, (Documents (Dept. 
$&&{: gerry^ptfi 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



OCT 01 1992 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



September 30, 1992 



Fman 



r inance Committee 
Budget Analyst (\t<io{*\y\tt J &<^ ,6rJs 



SUBJECT: October 1, 1992 Special Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 100-92-8 

This item is a hearing to consider what City property might be sold or leased to 
help address the fiscal emergency. 

The attached listing compiled by the Department of Real Estate in May, 1991 
provides a summary of potential surplus properties for the City and County of San 
Francisco. The Budget Analyst has also requested that the Public Utilities 
Commission provide additional information regarding the Water Department's City of 
Pleasanton property. The preliminary estimated value of the properties included in 
the attachment (where Real Estate could estimate the value) ranges from 
$76,000,000 to $143,675,000. 

Mr. Harry Quinn of the Real Estate Department reports that in addition to the 
attached summary of properties, the following parcels may potentially become 
surplus properties to the City: 

Preliminary 
City Department Location Area Estimate of Value 



Water Department 
Public Works 



Olympic Club 
5 Locations 



17.35+ acres 

Small Irregular 
Parcels 



$2.2 million 
$50,000 



According to Section 7.401 of the City's Charter, any real property owned by 
the City and County, except park property, may be sold based on the 
recommendation of the respective commission or officer that is responsible for the 
property. The Board of Supervisors must then, by ordinance, authorize the sale and 
request the Director of Property to make a preliminary appraisal of the property. The 
Director of Property must publicly advertise the proposed sale and report to the 
responsible department and the Board of Supervisors regarding all bids received. The 



Memo to Special Finance Committee 
October 1, 1992 

Board of Supervisors may authorize the acceptance of the highest and best offer if 
the offer is at least 90 percent of the preliminary appraisal, or may, by ordinance, 
direct that the property be sold at public auction. 

Section 7.402 of the Charter specifies that when the head of any department 
reports to the Board of Supervisors that certain land is not required for the purposes 
of the department, the Board of Supervisors may also authorize, by ordinance, the 
lease of such property. 

According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the proceeds from the 
sale of any property is deposited in the City's Real Property Fund. In accordance with 
Section 6.409 of the Charter, these funds shall, if required, be appropriated by the 
Board of Supervisors for the purchase of additional land for the use by the same 
department. Otherwise, the proceeds shall be appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors for the purchase of additional property for any City and County purpose 
or for capital improvements. The 1992-93 budget includes $4,358,000 of General 
Fund monies for capital improvements. Proceeds from the sale of City land could be 
appropriated for such General Fund capital improvement purposes, thus enabling the 
reappropriation of existing General Fund capital improvement funds for other 
purposes. 

However, proceeds from the sale of property acquired for the use of any utility 
(e.g., Water Department), bond, special or trust fund must revert to the specific 
utility, bond, special or trust fund. 

~?, 

[arvey M. Rose 

cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 

ttn AT?r» OF si JPPTRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 







3ity and County of San Francisco 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 

Real Estate Department 

Office of the 
Direcicr of ? r ccenv 



THROUGH: Rudolf Ncther.terg 

Chief Administrative Oiricer 

Supervisor Jim Gonzalez 
Hoard of Supervisors 
Scorn 235 City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Supervisor Gonzalez: 

This is in response to your request that we provide ycu wit: 
preliminary estimate of value for certain properties that m< 
under-utilized and potentially surplus to the needs of the : 
The attached chart gives a brief summary of these selected 
properties along with our preliminary estimate of value. 

These value estimates were achieved by making a number of 
assumptions, such as, approval to rezone from "Public" to a 
zoning which would allow private oommercial development. I: 
other cases, assumptions were ^.ade as to soils condition/ to: 
remediation. 

The value of some of the sites oould not be estimated due t: 
lack, of critical information, and this has been so indicates 






mrormacxcn 




Antnony^^- iDeEuccni 

QireccorcrV Procert 1 



Attachment 



,sim 



S-3,1 



Attachment 
-ace 2 of 



c;i 



.n 



o 
o 

cow 

•Zl 

,0l a: 1 

!lL a . 
I- w/ 

5? 3 

1 0)1 



5S 

>-i 

O 



ye; 

O Pi 

9!" 



> 

G i 



es «' 



■a? 



;-, r, 



ts 



" B 



m 



« 



£ ; V 



% c 



i.S 
38 



CITYAND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



October 5, 1992 

TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Controller and Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: Joint Report on Finance Committee's Recommendations for 
Amendments of the Mayor's Revised 1992-93 Budget 



The following is a recap of the status of budget revisions related to the $93 
million deficit in the 1992-93 budget: 



1992-93 Budget Recap 

Budget Deficit 

Add: 

Budget Revisions at Board October 5. 1992: 

Retirement Savings 

Departmental Reductions: 
Public Health 
Public Utilities - Muni 
Social Services 
Police 
Fire 
Other 
Total Departmental Reductions 

Reduced Board of Supervisors Reserves 
Revenue Transfers In 
New Revenues 

Total Reserves, Transfers & New Revenues 

Net 



($93,000,000) 



$7,774,000 . 

2,907,000 

3,236,000 

255,000 

206,000 

7-006.000 



$986,000 
4,550,000 
3.600.000 



32,700,000 



21.386,000 

9-136.000 
(29,778,000) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 5, 1992 
Page 2 

Actions Pending: 

Airport Loan $25,000,000 
PUC Equity Transfers 5,000,000 

Sale of Water Olympic Club Property 2.200.000 

Total Actions Pending 32.200.000 

Net Additional General F und Reserve Balance $2,422,000 

Beginning General Fund Reserve Balance 6.700.000 

Ending General Fund Balance $9, 122,000 

On September 18, 1992, the Mayor submitted amendments to the 1992-93 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance and the Annual Salary Ordinance which reduced 
expenditures of various General Fund budgets of the City, adjusted revenues to 
reflect current estimates and accounted for the State's revenue reductions to the 
City. The net effect of the Mayor's proposed amendments to the City's Fiscal Year 
1992-93 budget still resulted in a budget deficit of $28,657,778. In addition, 
proposed transfers from the Airport of $25,000,000 and the Public Utilities 
Commission of $5,000,000 would eliminate the deficit and increase the General 
Fund Reserve by $1,342,222. Subsequanttly, during the Finance Committee's 
deliberations over the last week the Finance Committee: 

Approved Amendments to the Mayor's Proposed 
Budget, Including Reductions in Expenditures and 
Reserves and Revenue Increases and Transfers 

Accepted Recommendations of the Budget Analyst to 
Reduce Expenditures and Increase Revenues of the 
Municipal and Superior Courts. $ 868,073 

Accepted Recommendation of the Budget Analyst To 
Reduce the Budget For a Clerical Error in the 
Municipal Railway's Clean On Time Program 183,901 

Approved the increase in an additional proposed PUC 

transfer pending sale of the Olympic Club property. 2,200,000 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 5, 1992 
Page 3 



Approved deletions and reductions in reserves which 
were previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors as follows: 

Deleted Police Academy Reserve $350,000 

Deleted Sheriff- Alternative 

Treatment Reserve 399,675 

Partially Reduced Reserve For Free Admission 

At The Zoo For Children 146,000 

Partially Reduced Library Sunday Hours 

Reserve 90,000 

Reduced General Reserve 

$10 million to $9 million) 1.000.000 

Total Reserve Reductions $1.985.675 

Additional Funding Sources $5,237,649 

Approved Amendments to the Budget To 
Restore the following reductions made by the 
Mayor in the Department of Public Health 

• Close One Psychiatric Ward 

(20 Beds) ($1,826,669) 

Reduction in Substance Abuse Detox 

and Outpatient Services (623,335) 

•Reduction in various Community 

Public Health Programs (420,688) 

•Reduction in various Community 

Mental Health Programs (869,488) 

•Eliminate Funding For Center For 

Positive Care and Implement a 

Modified Model At Other Locations (898,000) 

•Eliminate Provision Of All Over- 

the-Counter (OTC)Medications at the 

Jail, which would have made OTC 

Medications Available At Jail 

Commissary (22,500) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 5, 1992 
Page 4 



•Eliminate 1.0 FTE Staff Assistant 
for Mission Bay/Hunter's Point 
Oversight In Toxics, Health and 
Safety Services 

•Reduce Paramedics by taking one 
Ambulance Off the Street 

•Reduce AIDS Mass Media/Materials 
and Supplies 

•Consolidate Nutrition and Dietary 
Education Services 



(44,548) 
(291,667) 
(102,500) 

(7Q.QQQ) 



Total Department of Public Health Restorations 
Recommended by the Finance Committee 

Restoration in Other Departments Recommended by 
Finance Committee 



($5,169,395) 



Restore Full Funding For School Crossing Guards in 
the Police Budget 

Restore Full Funding For Seven Police Dispatcher 
Positions 

Restore One 2458 Forensic Toxicologist Position in 
the Coroner's Budget 

Restore One Affirmative Action Specialist in the 
Public Health Central Office Budget 

Restore Funding For Center For Municipal 
Occupational Safety and Health (CMOSH) 

Restore One 9158 Assistant Claims Agent For the 
Public Utilities Commission 

Restore One 8221 Chief, Protection Services Position 
(Without Funding) in Public Utilities Commission 



(250,000) 
(240,000) 
(52,903) 
(28,000) 
(58,000) 
(48,196) 




Memo to Finance Committee 
October 5, 1992 
Page 5 



Mayor's Recommended Restorations Accepted by 
Finance Committee 

Restore Part of the $190,000 Savings From the 
Proposed Transfer of the Zoo's Management To the 
Zoological Society. ($123,000) 

Reduce Salary Savings To Enable The City Planning 
Department To Staff the Construction Service 
Center (166,000; 

Establish a Reserve For the Implementation of the 

County Veteran Service Office (100,000) 

Establish a Reserve For the Department of Social 
Services to Establish a Rep-Payee Program and 
Enhancement of Social Services Associated With the 
General Assistance and SSI Programs. (217,000) 

Restore Funding To Animal Control For An 

Appropriation Not Carried Forward (5.400) 

Total Restorations (86,457,894) 



Summary- 

Increase in the General Fund Reserve As 

Recommended by the Mayor $1,342,222 

Proposed Additional Funding Sources 

As Recommended by the Finance Committee 5,237,649 
Less Restorations Recommended by the Finance 

Committee (6.457.894) 

Additional Monies Available for General Fund 

Reserve $121,977 

Prior Balance of General Fund Reserve 9.000.000 

Balance of General Fund Reserve $9.121.977 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 5, 1992 
Page 6 








[arvey M. Rose 'Ed Harrington'' 

Budget Analyst Controller 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Mayor Jordan 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






^UwJ t**~^> 



#2 7 ^*w~— 



,i^U~<^^ 



yw 



.U^v-^'W- j, 0<uJ u_ 



_ <^~ ^-=f ^^ < * W ^ 



*U5 c 



CAIENDA R ~ Action l«kt«j 



42 

johjll 



™ 



MEETING OF 
IANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ AND MIGDEN DOCUMENTS DEPT 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN OCT 1 3 1992 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
cf the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 23-92-7 . [Claims Against the Government] Resolution waiving the Statute 
of Limitations with respect to payment of seven certain warrants of the City 
and County of San Francisco, in an amount totalling $2,076.43 legal obligations 
of the City and County of San Francisco. (Controller) 

ACTION: Amended on lines 3 and 16, by replacing "$2,076.43" with 

"$1,103.45". Further amended by deleting line 15. Recommended 
as amended. New title: "Waiving the Statute of Limitations with 
respect to payment of certain warrants of the City and County of 
San Francisco, in the sum of $1,103.45, legal obligations of the 
City and County of San Francisco." 

(b) File 25-92-32 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution approving the 
Controller's certification that Airport Information Booth Program for San 
Francisco International Airport can practically be performed by private 
contractor at a lower cost for this program than if work was performed by City 
employees at presently budgeted levels. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(c) File 28-92-10 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health, 
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the 
necessary work to replace the damaged sanitary line serving the San Francisco 
Zoo's Terrace Cafe. (Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: Amended on line 10, by replacing "15-inch" with "5-inch". Further 
amended on line 20, by replacing "estimated at $35,000" with 
"$33,412". Recommended as amended. 



(d) File 146-92-26.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a 
continuation grant of $470,440, which includes indirect costs of $39,291, based 
on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue funding the 
evaluation and enhancement of HIV/ AIDS Prevention Street and Community 
Outreach Programs that serve youth in high-risk situations project (also known 
as the Youth Scope Project); providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, 
to accept and expend a continuation grant of $470,440, which 
includes indirect costs of $39,291, based on twenty percent of 
personnel costs, from the Department of Health and Human 
Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue funding the 
evaluation and enhancement of HIV/ AIDS Prevention Street and 
Community Outreach Programs that serve youth in high-risk 
situations project (also known as the Youth Scope Project); 
providing for ratification of action previously taken; placing 
$109,159 on reserve." 

(e) File 146-92-41.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a 
continuation grant of $1,444,565, which includes indirect costs in the amount 
of $158,044 based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department 
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue 
funding the Epidemiologic Research Studies of the Natural History of 
HrV/AIDS and HIV Incidence in Homosexual/Bisexual Men Recruited from the 
San Francisco Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic (formerly known as the 
Epidemiologic Study of the Natural History of HTV/AIDS in 
Homosexual/Bisexual Men Previously Enrolled in Studies of Hepatitis B 
Infection). (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(f) File 146-92-67 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, 
Division of Tuberculosis Control, to apply for a grant of $2,453,034, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $244,869 based on twenty percent of 
salaries, from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Disease Control, for the continuation of the following programs; Tuberculosis 
Prevention and Control/Elimination, and the HIV Related TB Prevention 
Program. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(g) File 146-92-68 . [Grant - Private Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Homeless Program, to apply for, accept and 
expend a grant of $100,000, from Comic Relief, for health services for 
homeless; providing for ratification of action previously taken; waiving indirect 
costs. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(h) File 203-92-1 . [Acceptance of Deed] Resolution authorizing acceptance of a 
deed from Progress Seven, Inc. of Lot 5 (portion) in Assessor's Block 4711 
public roadway purposes and finding such action is in conformity with the 
Master Plan. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing acceptance of a deed from Progress Seven, 
Inc. of Lot 5 (portion) in Assessor's Block 4711 for public roadway 
purposes and finding such action is in conformity with the Master 
Plan; requesting the Director of Public Works to propose 
acceptance of the roadway as a public street, if the street work is 
" completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works." 

(i) File 143-92-4 . [OCJP Funding] Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police of 
the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend funds in 
the amount of $500,000 made available through the Office of Criminal Justice 
Planning for a project entitled "Operation Revitalization". (Mayor) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and County of 
San Francisco to apply for and accept, retroactively, and to 
expend funds in the amount of $500,000, which includes indirect 
costs of $25,000 based on 5 percent of the total grant award, made 
available through the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for a 
project entitled 'Operation Revitalization'." 

(j) File 38-92-22.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 

Chief Administrative Officer, in the amount of $20,000, for financial advisory 
services (contractor Evenson Dodge, Inc, and joint venture partner, Charles A. 
Bell Securities). (CAO) 

ACTION: Release of $20,000 recommended. Filed. 

(k) File 146-92-2.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health - Management Information Systems, in the 
amount of $10,979, for the C.H.I. R.N. Project, computer equipment. 
(Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Release of $4,239 recommended. Filed. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

File 97-92-58 . [Renaming Civic Auditorium] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 4.21 to name the Civic Auditorium for Bill Graham. 
(Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. (Supervisor Migden added as co-sponsor.) 



3. File 97-92-40 . [Veterans Affairs Officer] Ordinance amending Administrative Code 
by adding Section 5. 108. A to establish a County Veteran Service Officer within the 
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 9/15/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

4. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the 
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Continued to October 21, 1992, meeting. 

5. File 42-92-25 . [Street Closing] Resolution waiving the requirement that the sponsor 
of the Annual Halloween street closing in the Castro Street area provide insurance 
and waiving all fees except for the street closure permit fee and the loudspeaker 
permit filing fee. (Supervisor Britt) 

ACTION: Continued to October 14, 1992, meeting. 

6. File 51-92-2. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

April, May, June 1992 

ACTION: Continued to October 14, 1992, meeting. 

7. File 47-92-5.1 . [Reject/Award Management Bid] Resolution rejecting bid of B. L. 
Horn Corporation in response for bids for management contract at Polk/Bush Garage 
and awarding said bid to City Parking as the lowest, responsive and responsible 
bidder. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

8. File 64-92-23 . [Lease of Property] Resolution authorizing lease of real property 
from the Department of the Navy for use by the Police Department, Narcotics 
Division (warehouse space in Building 128 at Hunters Point Annex) for storage of 
confiscated automobiles. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Amended on line 3, after "department", by adding "retroactive to July 1, 
1992". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing lease of real 
property from the Department of the Navy for use by the Police 
Department, Narcotics Division (warehouse space in Building 128 at 
Hunters Point Annex) for storage of confiscated automobiles; retroactive 
to July 1, 1992." 

9. File 198-92-2 . [Fees - Municipal Court] Resolution establishing a fee to cover 
administrative and clerical costs of processing installment accounts for the payment 
of fines imposed by the Municipal Court in criminal and traffic cases pursuant to 
Penal Code Section 1205(d). (Municipal Court) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



10. File 65-92-13 . [Lease] Ordinance approving lease between Recreation and Park with 
Theatre Bay Area to operate a discount ticket booth at Union Square Garage. 
(Recreation and Park Department) 

ACTION: Continued to October 14, 1992, meeting. 

11. File 97-92-56 . [Environmental Review Fees] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by amending Section 31.46A, concerning fees for zoning and public 
information, and construction services related to development projects and permit 
processing. (Department of City Planning) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

12. File 115-92-11 . [Planning Fees] Ordinance amending City Planning Code by adding 
new Section 374 and renumbering Section 374 of Article 3.5A, to impose new fees 
for zoning and public information, construction services and compliance activities 
related to development projects and permit processing. (Department of City 
Planning) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, lines 3, 13, 14, 16 and 24, by replacing "374" with 
"371"; and on page 1, line 24, by replacing "375" with "372". Further 
amended on page 1, at the end of line 23, by adding: "For building permit 
applications requiring Department of City Planning review, the fee shall 
be charged and collected by the Central Permit Bureau." Recommended 
as amended. New title: "Amending City Planning Code by adding new 
Section 371 and renumbering the previous Section 371 to Section 372 of 
Article 3.5A, to impose new fees for zoning and public information, 
construction services and compliance activities related to development 
projects and permit processing." 

13. File 173-92-3 . [Marine Terminal Use Agreement] Ordinance approving a five year 
Marine Terminal Use Agreement with National Shipping Corporation of the 
Philippines for use of the North Container Terminal (Pier 80). (Port) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

14. File 28-92-11 . [Airport Administration] Resolution approving a declaration of 
emergency, emergency environmental services at Roads 18 and 9, Airport Contract 
No. 3200, San Francisco International Airport - $150,000. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

15. File 82-92-8 . [Property Acquisition - Noise Easements] Resolution authorizing the 
acquisition of fifty-three additional noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco in their Phase VI Program - $500,000. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

16. File 170-92-11 . [Airport Revenue Bonds] Resolution approving the issuance of not to 
exceed $305,000,000 principal amount of San Francisco International Airport Second 
Series Refunding Revenue Bonds in up to three separate issues, and establishing a 
maximum interest rate therefor. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: To Board Without Recommendation. 



■In 



CITY AND COUNTY 



^J£u6Gc Library, "Documents (Dept. 

&> Qerry %gtfi 



OF SAN F 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



October 5, 1992 



TO: 
FROM: 



Finance Committee 

Budget Analyst foc*'»nf*dw*J< 



SUBJECT: October 7, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 
Item la 



W 

File 23-92-7 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 07 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: Controller's Office 

Item: Resolution waiving the statute of limitations with respect to 

payment of seven warrants of the City and County of San 
Francisco in the sum of $2,076.43, legal obligations of the City 
and County of San Francisco. 

Description: According to Section 10.181 of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code, a warrant issued by the City and 
County of San Francisco becomes void one year from the date 
issued. The payee of the warrant may present such warrants 
to the Controller for payment up to three years from the date 
that it was considered invalid, or four years from the original 
issue date. After that point, the Controller may no longer pay 
such warrants because the statute of limitations has expired, 
unless approval is obtained from the Board of Supervisors. 

The proposed resolution would waive the statute of 
limitations and would authorize the Controller's Office to 
replace the following warrants: 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 





Date 


Warrant 




Name 


Issued 


No. 


Amount 


Donald F. Badaracco 


4/1/80 


545-0035468 


$104.70 


Donald F. Badaracco 


1/15/88 


550-2420293 


332.80 


Mabel S. Wong 


9/23/80 


566442 


405.40 


Suzie Chow 


12/27/83 


515-3948420 


21.04 


Suzie Chow 


12/27/83 


515-3957806 


129.51 


Allan V. Erese 


2/4/87 


560-1045564 


110.00 


Lynn H. Kephart 


1/13/89 


550-2599944 


972.98 


Total 






$2,076.43 



Comments: 1. The Controller's Office reports that the warrant issued to 

Ms. Lynn H. Kephart was erroneously included in this 
proposed legislation. As noted above, this warrant was 
issued 1/13/89, less than four years ago, which means the 
statute of limitations has not expired. Since the statute of 
limitations has not expired, the Controller's Office is still 
authorized to make payment on this warrant without the 
approval of the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to (1) delete reference to 
Warrant No. 550-2599944 in the amount of $972.98 and (2) 
change the total sum of the warrants from $2,076.43 to 
$1,103.45 ($2,076.43 minus $972.98), in the body and title of the 
legislation. 

2. The Controller's Office advises that Ms. Mabel Wong, Ms. 
Suzie Chow and Mr. Allan Erese each reported that they 
misplaced their warrant(s) until recently and never cashed 
their warrant(s). Each of these individuals has requested 
that the warrant(s) be reissued. According to the 
Controller's Office, Mr. Donald Badaracco is now deceased. 
His son has requested that the two warrants, which have 
never been cashed, be reissued. 

3. The Controller's Office has verified that the above noted 
warrants have been cancelled. Mr. John Madden of the 
Controller's Office has verified that none of these warrants 
have been cashed. 



4. According to the Controller, the City and County of San 
Francisco has sufficient funds to pay the six warrants 
totalling $1,103.45. The Controller advises that, when a 
warrant is automatically cancelled after three years have 
passed, the monies revert back into the particular accounts 
from which they were drawn. 

5. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, a 
legal obligation is not necessarily a mandated obligation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed legislation to (1) delete reference to 
Warrant No. 550-2599944 and (2) change the total sum of the 
warrants from $2,076.43 to $1,103.45 ($2,076.43 minus 
$972.98), in the body and title of the legislation. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item lb - File 25-92-32 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Airports Commission 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that the 
Airport Information Booth Program for San Francisco 
International Airport can be performed by private contractor 
at a lower cost than if similar work were performed by City 
employees. 



The Airport Information Booth Program for San Francisco 
International Airport consists of three information booths 
(one in each Airport terminal) providing transportation, 
tourist and Airport information to visitors. The booths are 
open from 8 am to 12 midnight every day of the year, and 
provide services in over 144 languages to approximately 4,000 
travellers per day at each. 



Description: The Controller has determined that contracting for the 

Airport Information Booth Program services in Fiscal 1992- 
93 would result in estimated savings as follows: 






City Operated Service Cost 

Salaries (18 FTE) 
Employee benefits 
Operating Expenses 
Total 



Lowest 
Salary Step 



$627,814 

223,651 

236.297 

$1,087,762 



Highest 
Salary Step 



$757,669 

277,424 

236.297 

$1,271,390 



Contracted Service Cost 

Polaris Research and Development $949.999 $949.999 

Estimated Savings $137,763 $321,391 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Comments: 1. According to the Airports Commission, the Information 

Booth Program was first certified as required by Charter 
Section 8.300-1 in 1990 and has been provided by the same 
outside contractor since October of 1990. 

2. The Airport is currently contracting with Polaris 
Research and Development for the provision of these 
information services. This represents the third year of a five 
year contract. Polaris Research and Development is 
registered with the Human Rights Commission as an MBE 
firm. The Airport reports that the Airport Information Booth 
Program will be bid competitively every five years. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1-/V^'92. 09:41 ©415 554 7568 SPECIAL PROJECTS *-»- HARVEY M ROSE ©002 



CHARTER 8.300-1 (Proposition J) QUESTIONNAIRE 



Department SFIA Operations For Time Period October 15. 1992 / 

October 14. 1993 

Contract Services Airport Information (AD Booth Program 



1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

These services were approved by the Airports Commission on 
November 21, 1989, through Resolution #89-0219, and have been 
performed in an exemplary manner by Polaris Research and 
Development since October 15, 1990 to present. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting out? 

None (See #1) 



3) Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A (See #1) 



4) Hhat percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 
N/A (See #1) 



5) How long have the services been contracted out? 

Two years, from October 15, 1990 through October 14, 1992, 



6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J Certification? 
Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991 



7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 
This contract has been awarded to an MBE firm. It nas adhered to 
the City's non-d1scriminat1on ordinance of Chapter 128, 12C and 
120 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. 



=<=C*C-*_-=L 



Department Representative 
Duke Briscoe, Deputy Director 
Operations 
Telephone: (415) 876-2112 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item lc - File 28-92-10 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Works to 
take necessary measures to protect the health, welfare, and 
property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the 
necessary work to replace the damaged sanitary line 
serving the San Francisco Zoo's Terrace Cafe. 

In May, 1992, the Department of Public Works was asked 
by the San Francisco Zoo to undertake emergency repairs to 
a sanitary line serving the Zoo's Terrace Cafe and certain 
public restrooms at the Zoo. The sanitary line failed due to 
corrosion, preventing drainage from the Terrace Cafe and 
the public restrooms. The failure of the sanitary line 
resulted in closure of the Terrace Cafe and the public 
restrooms for approximately 3 weeks during the month of 
May while repairs were completed on an emergency basis. 

1. Mr. Mark Jurosek, an engineer with the Department of 
Public Works assigned to the San Francisco Zoo, reports 
that the sanitary line which serves the kitchen at the Zoo's 
Terrace Cafe also serves the public restrooms nearby. DPW 
was responsible to repair those portions of the sanitary line 
serving the restrooms, while repairs to the sanitary line to 
the kitchen were made by an outside contractor retained by 
the San Francisco Zoological Society, which is a non-profit 
agency which operates the Terrace Cafe. 

2 According to Mr. Jurosek, the total cost to the City for 
DPW to repair the sanitary line serving the restrooms was 
$33,412. 

Mr. Jurosek reports that DPW administers Earthquake 
Safety Program Bonds designated for the repair and 
maintenance of the Zoo's infrastructure. The bond funds 
provide for making emergency repairs as needed, until 
permanent improvements to the Zoo's facilities are 
performed under the bond program. The repairs to the 
sanitary line were financed using such bond funds, 
according to Mr. Jurosek. 

3. The proposed resolution states that 30 feet of 4-inch 
sanitary line was replaced by 15-inch sewer pipe. Mr. 
Jurosek reports that the new sewer pipe is only 5 inches in 
diameter. 

4. According to Mr. Jurosek, DPW verbally authorized 
repairs to be made on an emergency basis in early May, 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

after the sewer line failed, and repairs were completed in 
late May. The written statement by the Chief 
Administrative Officer that an emergency existed was 
issued on September 10, 1992, according to Mr. Jurosek. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend line 10 of the proposed resolution by substituting 
"5-inch" for "15-inch." 

2. Amend line 20 of the proposed resolution by substituting 
"The cost of the work is $33,412" for, "The cost of the work 
is estimated at $35,000." 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item Id -File 146-92-26.1 



Department: 
Item: 






Amount: 
Source of Grant: 
Grant Period: 
Project: 



Project 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the DPH to accept and expend a 
continuation grant of $470,440, which includes indirect costs 
of $39,291, based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from 
the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Disease Control, to continue funding the evaluation and 
enhancement of HIV/AIDS Prevention Street and 
Community Outreach Programs that serve youth in high- 
risk situations (also known as the Youth Scope Project); 
providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

$470,440 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 

The evaluation and enhancement of HrV/AIDS Prevention 
Street and Community Outreach Programs that serve youth 
in high-risk situations (Youth Scope Project) 



The proposed grant would fund the continuation of a 
program to evaluate and enhance HrV/AIDS prevention 
street and community outreach programs that serve youth in 
high-risk situations, such as runaways, homeless youth, and 
youth who are injection drug users. The proposed grant 
would be used to assess the effectiveness of street-based 
outreach in reducing HrV infection among high-risk youth. 
The project would be divided into two phases. First, the 
program would assess: (1) the location and size of the target 
population; (2) current outreach coverage of specific 
geographic areas; (3) costs associated with that coverage; and 
(4) current modes of evaluation. Second, the project would 
test the efficacy of a specially designed street outreach 
intervention. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance 
October 7, 1992 

Budget: 



No. of Persons 
to be Served 

Required Match: 

Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



FTE 



Committee 



Personnel 

Epidemiologist 

Health Educator 

Statistician 

MIS Technician II 

Sr. Clerk Typist 

Health Worker II 



Subtotal 
Fringe Benefits @ 26 percent 

Total Personnel 5.46 

Travel 
Local Travel 

Out of Jurisdiction Travel 
Total Travel 

Training 

Materials and Supplies 
Office Supplies 
Educational Materials 

Total Materials and Supplies 



1.00 


$47,735 


0.46 


23,344 


1.00 


41,793 


0.50 


13,582 


0.50 


15,161 


2.00 


54.836 




$196,451 




51.077 



500 
10.000 



1,000 
2.500 



Contractual Services (Street Outreach Intervention) 



$247,528 



10,500 
1,500 

3,500 
109,159 



Operating Expenses 

Rent 23,638 

Telephone 4,824 

Courier Services 500 

Postage 500 

Photocopying 3,000 

Advertising 2,500 

Client Participation Incentives 24.000 

Total Operating Expenses 58,962 

Indirect Costs (20% of salaries) 39.291 

Total Project Budget $470,440 

At-risk youth population in San Francisco 

None 

$39,291, based on 20 percent of salaries. 

1. The DPH advises that the contractor for Street Outreach 
Intervention, at $109,159, has not yet been selected. Therefore, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

$109,159 should be reserved pending selection of a contractor 
and information regarding the hours, rates and MBE/WBE 
status of the contractor. 

2. The DPH advises that if the proposed grant is reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant includes 5.46 FTEs. 

3. The proposed grant would be the 2nd year of an ongoing 
grant. The proposed grant of $470,440 represents a decrease 
of $9,578, or two percent, from the previous grant of $480,018. 

4. DPH reports that the proposed grant has already been 
accepted. Therefore, the proposed resolution provides for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

5. Attached is the Health Commission's "Summary of Grant 
Request." 

6. A Disability Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 

Recommendation: Reserve $109,159 pending selection of a contractor and 
information regarding the hours, rates and MBE/WBE status 
of the contractor, and approve as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Ilc m No. H^nlth f^orTirnt<^inp - Summary of Cmnt PcniicM 

Dept of Health and Human Services 

_ r _ n 1 r Centers for Disease Control Division • CO/AIDS Div 

Contact Person Edwin L. Dixon Section AIDS Office 

Address 255 East Paces Ferry Road Contact Person Tim Piland 

Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone 554-9132 " 

Amount Requested S 470.440 Application Deadline 5/8/92 

Term: From 10/1/92 To 9/30/93 Notification Expected Rec ' d 8/7/92_ 

Health Commission 9/ 1/92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 



Full Board 



T. Item Description: Request lo (casptofe^ (accept and expend) a $ne*# (continuation) (a H3rar«BK)<feHgCTisxax»PWg) 
c&v: .R-opn.. «ri,i gTant u, the amount of S 470,440 from the period of 10/1/92 to 9/30/93 

in pmvirif. Evaluation and Enhancement of HIV/AIDS Prevention se~icis 
Programs that Serve Youth in High-Risk Situations (Youth SCOPE Pro; 

This program will continue to evaluate and enhance HIV/AIDS prevention street and 
community outreach programs that serve- youth in high-risk situations te.g-» runaway s, 
homeless vouth, and youth who are injection drug users); please see attachment for a 
more detailed description of program. 

ITT. Ou;c--es/Ohiectives: 
Please see attachment. 



TV Fff>c-<: nf . P-durp 



Failure to accept and expend these funds will impair our continuing efforts to addr e; 
the needs of youth in high-risk situations in regard to designing effective and cos t- 
efficient HIV/AIDS health education and risk-reduction strategies for this populatiot 



V, Financlsj Tn form q tion : 



Cnl. 
Grant Amccct 


\ Cnl. B 

Si Ago ?z;; Ycar/Orig. 

480,018 


Cnl. C 
• Prop^-.c: 

470,400 

247,528 




Cm. n 

Changs 

- 9,578 


Persona e 1 


313,328 


- 65,800 


Equipment 


16,590 


- 16,590 


Contract Svc. 





109,159 

3,500 

23,638 

47,324 

39,291 



5.46 


+109,159 


Mat. & Su:d. 


18,603 


- 15,103 


Facil i t ies/S □ a c e 


23,638 





Other 


60,124 


- 12,800 


Indirect Costs 


49,735 


- 10,444 


VI. Pntn P-n C -<<;n° 


16,590 


- 16,590 


VTT. PfrcnnnH 

F/T CSC 


6.7 


- 1.21 


P/T CSC 






Contractual 




TBD 





?.tc. Match A gam v .. £ 



Source(s) of non-jrant fuoding for salaries of CSC employees vrorking part-time on this grant: 

None . 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 

No. 

•vm. rnnfrnrn.irt! S*rvif»<: Open Bid X Sole Source (j.».«^-= .c«i teoc fe =■ 

RFP will be issued late 9/92. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item le - File 146-92-41.1 

Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 
Project: 



Project 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the DPH, AIDS Office, to accept and 
expend a continuation grant of $1,444,565, which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $158,044 based on twenty 
percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health 
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to 
continue funding the Epidemiologic Research Studies of the 
Natural History of HIV/AIDS and HIV Incidence in 
Homosexual/Bisexual Men Recruited from the San Francisco 
Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic (formerly known as the 
Epidemiologic Study of the Natural History of HrV/AIDS in 
Homosexual/Bisexual Men Previously Enrolled in Studies of 
Hepatitis B Infection). 

$1,444,565 

Department of Health and Human Services 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993 

Epidemiologic Research Studies of the Natural History of 
HrV/AIDS and HrV Incidence in Homosexual/Bisexual Men 
Recruited from the San Francisco Sexually Transmitted 
Disease Clinic 



The proposed grant would fund the continuation of a project 
to monitor the natural history of HIV infection in 
homosexual/bisexual males previously enrolled in studies of 
Hepatitis B. In addition, a new cohort of homosexual/ 
bisexual males would be enrolled into a new study of HrV 
incidence at City Clinic to determine the feasibility of 
conducting vaccine trials in San Francisco. 

The primary objectives of the natural history study are to 
determine the prevalence and incidence of HIV/AIDS, to 
identify behavioral and biological factors associated with HrV 
seroconversion, and to monitor the disease's progress over 
time in an established cohort of gay males. The primary 
objective of the HrV incidence study is to determine the 
feasibility of conducting vaccine trials in San Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Budget Personnel FTE 



Supervising Sr. Physician 


1.00 


$101,206 


Sr. Physician 


1.30 


119,415 


Epidemiologist III 


1.00 


62,818 


Principal Disease Control 






Investigator (DCI) 


1.00 


52,008 


Sr. DCI 


1.00 


46,384 


DCI 


4.00 


172,604 


Psychiatric Social Worker 


0.04 


1,793 


Sr. Programmer Analyst 


1.00 


56,657 


Statistician 


1.20 


49,009 


MIS Technician 


2.00 


58,912 


Sr. Clerk Typist 


2.00 


69.416 


Subtotal 




$790,222 


Fringe Benefits @ 26 percent 




205.458 


Total Personnel 


15.54 




Travel 






Local Travel 




3,120 


Out-of-Jurisdiction Travel 




16.500 


Total Travel 






Training 






Equipment (computer maintenance) 




Materials and Supplies 







$995,680 

19,620 
1,200 
1,500 



Office Supplies 3,359 

Furniture 1,920 

Clinical Supplies 7,075 

Educational Materials 1,200 

National Death Index 825 

Death certificates 1,100 

Hepatitis B Cohort Cancer Match 6,000 

Laboratory Supplies 93.400 

Total Materials and Supplies 114,879 

Contractual Services ( Clinical Laboratory Services) 33,175 

Operating Expenses 

Rent 42,363 

Telephone 13,536 

Computer Communication 18,000 

Voice Mail 2,500 

Courier Services 4,668 

Postage 1,479 

Photocopying 6,300 

Printing 3,146 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 





Advertising 

Client Participation Incentives 
Total Operating Expenses 


$2,875 
25.600 

$120,467 




Indirect Costs (20% of salaries) 


158.044 




Total Project Budget 


$1,444,565 


No. of Persons 
tobe Served: 


1,100 




Required Match: 


None 




Indirect Costs: 


$158,044, based on 20 percent of salaries. 




Comments: 


1. The DPH advises that the contractual 


services, at $33,175, 



would include clinical laboratory services (e.g., analysis of 
blood samples). According to Ms. Judith Weld of the DPH, 
Damon Laboratories would continue to provide these services 
for one additional year. Damon Laboratories was selected in 
FY 1989-90 based on a competitive bid. The DPH anticipates 
conducting a new competitive bid in FY 1993-94. 

2. The DPH advises that if the proposed grant is reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant includes 15.54 FTEs. 

3. The proposed grant would be the 9th year of an ongoing 
grant. The proposed grant of $1,444,565 represents a decrease 
of $607,563, or approximately 30 percent, from the previous 
grant of $2,052,128. 

4. Attached is the Health Commission's "Summary of Grant 
Request." 

5. A Disability Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



H^nUh C'Tnrni^ion - S u nimnrv of Grant Request 



Address 



Dept of Health and Human Services 

n[or Centers for Disease Control Division - CO/AIDS DIv 

, n tact Person Lin Dixon/Scott Holmberg Section ATDS Office 

1600 Clirton Road, NE Contact PersoD Tim Piland 

Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone 554-9132 

Amount Requested s 1,444,565 Application Deadline 7/ 1 7/92 

Term: From 11/1/92 To 10/31/93 Notification Expected 10/1/92 

Health Commission 9/1 /92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 9/23/92 

Full Board 9/28/92 

T. Item Description: Request to (sspfyxftsi^ (accept and expend) a^Dow^ (coniinuadon) SaiicEaoc^^MsjratxisbicjaKyx^ 
(o^c .pp-opr-..,: -<**) grant ^ ^g amount f S 1 ,444 ,565 frcm the period of 11/1 /92 to 10/31/93 

to provide Epi Study of Natural History and HIV Incidence _ ___-••___ 
in Homosexual/Bisexual Men Recruited from the SF STD Clinic 

TT Su mmary? (Coee*ViilIary;aeedad£«»«d: nii=t * cmi.-p» *=r~*£.\ cvim *zA pro^OCT ) 

This project will continue to monitor the natural history of HIV infection in homo sexual/ 
bisexual males previously enrolled in studies of hepatitis B; in addition, a new coh ort of 
like males will be enrolled into a new study of HIV incidence at City Clinic to det ermine 
the feasibility of conducting vaccine trials in San Francisco. 

ITT. Outcomes /Objectives: 

Natural history study primary objective is to determine the prevalence and incide nce of 
HIV/AIDS, identify behavioral and biological factors associated with HIV seroconv ersion, an 
disease progress over time in an established cohort of gay males; HIV Incidence Stud y will 
determine the feasibility of conducting vaccine trials in San Francisco. 

TV. Fffec:< "( Reduction nr Termination of Th,<> FiiHc- 

Reduction or termination of these funds would impair the research capability of the AIDS 
Office in providing important and unique epidemiologic data and jeopardize our abil ity 
to attract future research grant funding. 



Financial Information: 





Col. A 


Col. R 


Col. C 


Co 


1. D 






Two Yc^'s Ago 


?is; Y=sr/Ori_. 


Proposed 


Gi 


:r.gt: 




Grant Ac oust 


2,197,996 


2,052,128 


1,444,565 


- 


607 


563 


Persona e! 


1 ,381 ,986 


1,472,565 


995,680 


- 


476 


885 


Equipment 


9,200 


17,084 


1,500 


- 


15 


584 


Contract Svc. 


330,813 


59,750 


33,175 


- 


26 


575 


Mat. & Supp. 


31,800 


56,555 


106,954 


+ 


50 


399 


Facilit ies/S pace 


81,426 


75,418 


42,363 


- 


33 


055 


Other 


138,520 


137,015 


106,849 


- 


30 


166 


Indirect Costs 


224,251 


233,741 


158,044 


- 


75 


697 


VI. nmn Pm C P< 


;i_o 












[t..it^.^) 


4,500 


9,150 











VTT. P t rcnn„.l 








F/T CSC 


25.00 


21.55 


15.54 








P/T CSC 










Con tractual 















Reo. Ma: 
NONE 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
None . 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 

No. 

renewal 
* V HT. Contractual Sfrvjr": Open Rid RFP 032-89 Sole Source (if«i«««= m^uv^ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item If - File 146-92-67 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 
Projects: 



Project 
Description: 



Budget 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control 
Division of Tuberculosis Control 

Resolution authorizing the DPH, Bureau of Epidemiology and 
Disease Control, Division of Tuberculosis Control, to apply for 
a grant of $2,453,034, which includes indirect costs in the 
amount of $244,869 based on twenty percent of salaries, from 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 
for Disease Control, for the continuation of the following 
programs: Tuberculosis (TB) Prevention and 
Control/Elimination, and the HrV Related TB Prevention 
Program. 

$2,453,034 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

February 1, 1993 to January 31, 1994 

Tuberculosis Prevention and Control/Elimination 
HrV-Related TB Prevention Program 



The proposed grant would fund diagnostic treatment, 
surveillance, screening, case finding, registry and medical 
consultation for the Tuberculosis Prevention and 
Control/Elimination and the HrV related TB Prevention 
Programs. The project includes daily therapy and screening, 
and preventive therapy for infection at substance abuse sites. 
The goals of the program are: (1) to assure adequate 
treatment for those who are currently in therapy; (2) to 
identify and treat infection in substance abuse clinics where 
HrV infection increases risk; and (3) to assist in the 
reduction and elimination of tuberculosis through outreach. 

A more detailed project budget will be provided when the 
Department requests authorization to accept and expend the 
proposed grant. However, the Department has currently 
established a proposed skeleton budget, as follows: 



Personnel FTE 

Salaries 

Fringe Benefits @ 27 percent 

Total Personnel 28.0 



$1,222,845 
329.361 



$1,552,206 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANAL YSr 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Required Match: 

Estimated # of 
Persons Served: 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Equipment $63,196 

Materials and Supplies 131,527 

Contractual Services 326,637 
Operating Expenses 

Total Operating Expenses 24,000 

Other/Travel 110,599 

Indirect Costs (20% of salaries) 244.869 

Total Project Budget $2,453,034 
None 



Active TB cases: 383 
Preventative Therapy: 3,872 
TB Screening: 3,900 

$244,869, based on 20 percent of salaries. 

1. The DPH advises that Contractual Services for the 
proposed grant would include nursing services for 
community substance abuse sites. Information regarding the 
contractors would be provided when the DPH requests 
authorization to accept and expend the proposed grant. 

2. The DPH advises that if the proposed grant is reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. The proposed grant includes 28 FTEs. 

3. Dr. Gisela Schechter of the DPH advises that the proposed 
grant would be the tenth year of an on-going grant for 
Preventative TB services, and the fifth year of an on-going 
grant for HIV services. The proposed grant of $2,453,034 
represents an increase of $1,675,251, or approximately 216 
percent, from the previous grant of $777,783. Dr. Schechter 
advises that the reason for this increase is that the program 
would expand services as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Approximate # 
# Persons Served Persons Proposed to Percent 
Program in 1991 Be Served in 1993 Increase 

Active TB Cases 333 383 15 

Preventive Therapy 3,200 3,872 21 

Screening 3,000 3,900 30 

Dr. Schechter advises that the project would also commence 
operation of a laboratory to use rapid technology for diagnosis 
of TB, increase the number of health workers in the field who 
screen for TB and daily observed therapy, and assist in the 
implementation of DNA fingerprinting for the TB virus. 

4. Attached is the Health Commission's "Summary of Grant 
Request," as prepared by the DPH. 

6. A Disability Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



I! h f~niTT-n' 



. <;, 



if r. r ? nt 



Rev. ii/io.'?: 



CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL 
.., Person VICTORIA WESTRERC/CRANTS 



255 F. patfc; ffrry Rn n f RM3 00 

MAIL STOP E14, ATLANTA, GA 30305 



mount Requested S — 2,453,034 

2/1/93 To 
erm: rroa ' ° 

-leallh Commission 



1/31/94 



Division COMMUNITY PlIRfTT HFAF.TH <?FO VTrFS 

Section BEDC/TB CONTROL , 

Contact Person FRANCES TAYLOR. M.D. 
Telephone (4151 206-8574 fr.TSET.A <?CHF^TFP , 
Application Deadline October 19. 1997 
Notification Expected 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Board 



. Ttrm n^c-Hptinn; R- curst 10 (apply for) fexzDpsxxiJjJsparai) a^nc«$ (continuation) fe^YOTrxi^zBgrazg&gBaacsog) 
icvoc .Tft^- "*> gra^t In the. amount of S 2,453,034 from the period of 2/1/93 to 1/31/94 

to pmvirir. assistance in the reducti on and control nf ruhprmlngic xxxkss. 

Diagnostic treatment, surveillance, screening, case finding, registry and medical 

consultation have been supported by this project for 10 years. The project serves- 
all communities in San Francisco. 



TTT. Outcomec/Ob'fCtivc:: 
1. To assure adequate treatment of cases by daily observed therapy. 



2. To identify and 



treat infection in substance Abuse Clinics where HIV infection increases risk. 3. Assis t 
in the reduction and ultimate elimination of tuberculosis by instituting intensified outreac 



tv, T.rr^ct* a£ RaJB&l»» 



rmiriptinn nf T"Vi*<* 



: t)"d^: 



Cnrrpnf activities, -daily observed therapy and screening, and preventive therapy for inf ec- 
tion in substance abuse sites would have to be discontinued. Proposed activities, inten si- 
fied outreach and screening, information and education activities, and improved patient care 

would not. be realized. 

v. rinancJ2l information: •. 



Grant Amount 
P ersonn el 
Equipment 
'Contract Svc. 
Mat. £: Supp. 
Facilities/S pace 
Other /travel 
Indirect Costs 

vt. n ? : ; .?-n r .« 

VTT. P.rcnnn.; 

?/T CSC 
?/T CSC 
Contractual 



Col- j 


cm. B 


c 


ol. C 


Two Yssn A£o 


?tn YcK/Orij. 


3> 


rooosrd 


498,444 


777,783 


2 


453,034 


323,143 


480,102 


1 


552,206 


-.- 


9,754 




63,196 


104,000 


149,705 


326,637 


7,799 


40,156 




131,527 


-.- 


1,250 




24,000 


12,685 


27,228 


110,599 


49,997 


69,588 




244,869 • 



8.0 



0.5 



13 



Jk5_ 



36,749 



28 



2.0 



1.0 



Col. D 
Osiais 



Rec. Match 4 no: 



bv 



Ju± 



Source(s) of non-2r23t ruadin; for S2)2ries of CSC employees trorkicj 
None are provided. 



par! 



time on tms 



ii ill £rant funded employees be rehired 2f;er this 
Ypq, bv placement in ad valorem positions. 



terminates? If so, Hovr? 



■ VTTT. r 



""trgrti.yl 



LI Open Bid 



Sol: Source 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item lg - File 146-92-68 

Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 

Project: 

Description: 



No. of Persons 
to be Served: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Homeless Program 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, to 
apply for, accept and expend a grant of $100,000, from Comic 
Relief, for health services for the homeless, providing for 
ratification of action previously taken and waving indirect 
costs. 

$100,000 

Comic Relief Inc., a national non-profit organization 
established to raise funds for homeless programs. 

July 1, 1992 to April 30, 1993 

Medical and Social Services for the Homeless 

The proposed grant would fund the continuation of medical 
and social services to the homeless. The services are provided 
at the following eight community-based agencies: 

1. Tom Waddell Clinic 

2. St. Anthony Foundation - Health Clinic 

3. South of Market Multi-Service Center 

4. Larkin Street Youth Center 

5. North of Market Multi-Service Center 

6. Salvation Army 

7. Espiscopal Sanctuary Shelter 

8. Bayview Hunters Point Foundation 



Approximately 800 clients 



Project Budget 



Personnel 

Health Worker III (1.5 FTE) 
Social Work Intern 
Fringe Benefits 
Subtotal 



$45,718 

6,256 

11.887 



$63,861 



B OARD QF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 



Local Match: 



Operating Expenses 






Contract Services - Bayview 






Hunters Point Foundation 


$30,889 




Consultant Services 


2,500 




Telephone & Utilities 


500 




National Health Care for the 






Homeless Council Dues 


2,000 




Hands Net Subscription* 


250 




Subtotal 




$36,139 


Total 




$100,000 



* The Hands Net is a data network subscription which 
provides access to a wide range of health information and 
data, including health information as it relates to the 
homeless. 

None - The Grantor does not permit these grant funds to be 
used for Indirect Costs. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
requests that indirect costs be waived. 

None 



Comments: 1. The DPH advises that the application for these grant funds 

has already been submitted and that the Grantor has notified 
the Department that the City will be allocated the $100,000. 
In addition, the DPH reports that the project is currently 
being carried out and expenditures are being incurred 
against these grant funds. As previously noted, the proposed 
legislation provides for ratification of action previously taken. 



2. As previously noted, the proposed grant would fund this 
program through April 30, 1993. The DPH expects to receive 
additional grant funds this fiscal year from Comic Relief Inc. 
The DPH advises that while the amount of these additional 
grant funds has not, as yet, been determined, the Department 
intends to use whatever funds are made available to extend 
the term of the grant program, hopefully through the end of 
the fiscal year. 

3. The DPH reports that if no additional funds are provided 
by Comic Relief Inc. to continue this program after April 30, 
1993, that the grant funded positions will be eliminated, 
unless another source of funds can be identified to pay for 
these positions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



4. Attached is the Health Commission Summary of Grant 
Request, as prepared by the DPH, for this proposed grant. 

5. The DPH has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, for 
each of the eight project sites, which is included in the file. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Comic Relief. I m ,,., ;PHS 



Olvlilon 



/ llc t Person Dennis Al.h,iuf,li Section Homeless 

, dral K) '<'J Conun-y I'ark Kasc . See. 42 50 Com.ct r.no. lied Millift.-iii 



l.os Angeles. CA 90067 Telephone V3A-76 7 3 

amount Requested S 100,000.00 Application Dcadl.ne . . 

Verm: From 7/1/92 To A/30/93 Notification Expected 

Health Commission Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard 

r _Tt f m P r<frlr''" n : Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a OW/ (continuation) ^o#tftfrr)/(>v / 3tyjWvW fa/?t) 

«=~u -n-r^ H g TZnl b the amount of s lOO.OOO from (he period of 7/ 1/92 to .4/30/93 

to provide continuation of homeless health __^_ services 

Proposed grant would fuad continuation of medical and social services to the 

homeless at eight community-based clinics Including the City-operated Tom Wadde~ll 
Clinic. 



fTT. Outcome </Pb«CCfivc57 

Approximately 800 client contacts will be provided by health workers. 



TV. SQVctS n< " ^fdurticn or T f rwin ? IM- of Thr<- •Cqric.c; 

See attachment. 

V. financial Tnfnrnntion: 

(IS mos) 

Col. A Col. 3 Col. C Col. D Rcc. Match Approved frr 

T<*o Yexn Ajo ?ia YcxcfOnt. ?jopo*=«l Cctajc 

Grant Amount 103,500 238,197" 100,000 (138,197) " 

Personnel 102,901 188,560 63.861 (124,699) 

Eqnlpment 200 - (200) 

Contract Svo 44,427 3.0,889 " (13.538) 

Mat. Si Sup?. 599 

Facilities/Spice 



Other 5,010 5,250 240 

Indirect Costs _ — - 



VT n ? >7 Pi-nc-ro." 



?rc CSC 3.0 3.0 ^5 (1.5) 

?rr esc 2.0 (7,0) 

Contractu;; 1 . L.O 



Sourcc(s) of aon-jrzat funding for saliries of CSC employees «"orkin° part-tine on this jrzst: 
None 



Will ;nn: funded employers be retzined after this = .-znt terminates? If so. Hot? 
More funds expected in November to extend term of grant. 



^Lj^l ^qy! ^v.V-e- Qp,n Bid X 



Sole Source 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item lh - File 203-92-1 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing acceptance of a deed from Progress 
Seven, Inc. of Lot 5 (portion) in Assessor's Block 4711 for 
public roadway purposes and finding such action is in 
conformity with the Master Plan. 

In accordance with the City's Redevelopment Plan for 
Hunter's Point, the Redevelopment Agency conveyed a 
portion of Assessor's Block 4711 to Progress Seven, Inc. 
Progress Seven, Inc. has developed the property, known as 
"City View," with 15 affordable single family detached 
homes, and has made other municipal improvements. The 
improvements include a roadway, proposed to be named 
Progress Street, comprised of new pavement, sidewalks, 
curbs, gutters, catch basins, and utilities. 

The proposed resolution would adopt and incorporate the 
findings of the Department of City Planning dated August 
20, 1990 that the acceptance of the deed and dedication of 
the property as a public street is in conformity with the 
City's Master Plan. The proposed resolution would also 
authorize the Director of Property to accept a deed from 
Progress Seven, Inc. for the roadway proposed to be named 
Progress Street. In addition, the proposed resolution would 
direct the Director of Public Works to propose acceptance of 
the roadway as a public street to the Board of Supervisors, 
if the street work is completed to the satisfaction of the 
Director of Public Works. 

1. In its letter of August 20, 1990, the City Planning 
Department reported that the 15-lot subdivision and the 
roadway constructed by Progress Seven, Inc. was "in 
conformity with the Master Plan, provided that the 
subdivider complies with Section 1342 of the Subdivision 
Code concerning an affirmative action plan." This 
qualification of the certification by the Department of City 
Planning is not included in the text of the proposed 
resolution. 

Section 1342 of the Subdivision Code requires a developer 
to train sales personnel in affirmative action policies, to 
solicit low and moderate income buyers through 
appropriate advertising, and to maintain records of its 
affirmative action sales activities. Ms. Michelle Davis of 
the Housing Division of the San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency reports that Progress Seven, Inc. solicited low and 
moderate income buyers for the 15 housing units at City 
View, and sold 13 of the 15 units to qualified low and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



moderate income buyers. The purchase of these 13 units 
was subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency using tax 
increment funds which were administered by the San 
Francisco Housing Development Corporation, according to 
Ms. Davis. The remaining 2 units were not sold under the 
low and moderate income subsidy program, according to 
Ms. Davis, because sufficient funds were not available to 
subsidize all 15 units. 

2. According to the Real Estate Department, the deed for 
the roadway would be conveyed to the City at no cost to the 
City. 

3. Mr. Javier Solorzano of the Department of Public Works 
reports that acceptance of the grant deed from Progress 
Seven, Inc. was delayed because a lien existed against the 
property, and the City Attorney's Office recommended 
against acceptance of the deed until the matter was 
resolved. 

Mr. Jessie Smith of the City Attorney's Office reports that a 
mechanic's lien at one time existed on the property. A 
mechanic's lien is a lien placed against a property because 
compensation was not paid by a developer for contractual 
services, according to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Smith states that he has recommended to the Real 
Estate Department that a title report be obtained 
concerning the property, to insure that no liens are 
currently recorded. However, Mr. Smith states that if a 
lien is placed against the property after the date of the title 
report but before the deed is transferred to the City, the 
City would be responsible for the Hen. 

Therefore, Mr. Smith states that he has also recommended 
that the Real Estate Department obtain title insurance for 
the property, which would protect the City from liability for 
any liens recorded against the property after the date of the 
title report but before the deed is conveyed to the City. 

4. Mr. John Panieri of the Real Estate Department states 
that a title report issued July 9, 1991 showed a lien of 
$32,000 against the property. A subsequent title report 
issued June 18, 1992 shows that no liens were recorded 
against the property as of June 18, 1992. Mr. Panieri states 
that the Real Estate Department will obtain a further title 
report before accepting the deed, if acceptance of the deed is 
authorized by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Panieri also 
states that title insurance will be obtained for the deed, the 
cost of which would be paid by Progress Seven, Inc. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Recommendation: 



5. Mr. Panieri states that it is a standard procedure of the 
Real Estate Department to obtain current title reports and 
title insurance for any deeds which are conveyed to the 
City. 

6. The proposed resolution would request the Director of 
Public Works to propose to the Board of Supervisors that 
the property be accepted as a public street, "if the street 
work is completed to the Directors's satisfaction." Mr. 
Solorzano states that the roadway has been constructed to 
DPW standards and specifications and will be 
recommended by DPW for acceptance as a public street in 4 
to 6 weeks. Mr. Solorzano reports that DPW ordinarily 
recommends a number of roadways for acceptance as public 
streets simultaneously to the Board of Supervisors, and 
Progress Street would be included in DPWs next series of 
recommendations. 

7. Mr. Rich Cunningham, Supervisor of the Bureau of 
Street and Sewer Repair for the Department of Public 
Works, states that annual maintenance costs for the street, 
which is approximately 160 feet long, would be negligible. 
The costs would be added into the cost of maintaining more 
than 850 miles of City streets, according to Mr. 
Cunningham. 

8. The title of the proposed resolution does not reflect that 
the resolution would request the Director of Public Works to 
propose acceptance of the roadway as a public street, if the 
street work is completed to the satisfaction of the Director 
of Public Works. Therefore, the title of the proposed 
resolution should be amended accordingly. 

1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution by adding, at 
the end of the title, a semi-colon and the words, "requesting 
the Director of Public Works to propose acceptance of the 
roadway as a public street, if the street work is completed 
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works." 

2. Amend page 2, line 24 of the proposed resolution to read, 
"...is in conformity with the Master Plan, provided that the 
subdivider complies with Section 1342 of the Subdivision 
Code concerning an affirmative action sales program;..." 

3. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item li - File 143-92-4 

Department Police 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Term: 

Program: 

Description: 



Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to apply for, accept 
and expend a new Federal grant through the State Office of 
Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP), for a project entitled 
Operation Revitalization. 

$500,000 

Federal funding through the State Office of Criminal Justice 
Planning 

June 30, 1992 through December 31, 1993 (18 months) 

Operation Revitalization 

The proposed grant would fund a concerted effort to revitalize 
the Tenderloin in a program entitled Operation 
Revitalization. The Police Department reports that the 
Tenderloin is the City's highest crime area and accounts for 
the most calls for service. Drugs and related crimes are the 
main problems in the Tenderloin. 

The San Francisco Police Department has an eight officer 
uniformed task force working the Tenderloin. The Police 
Department has also instituted a 30 officer Crime 
Suppression Unit which works in an undercover capacity. 
The Tactical Unit of the Crime Suppression Unit is a special 
response unit to crime-plagued areas of San Francisco and 
has been assigning officers to work in the Tenderloin on a 
daily basis. 

The Police Department reports that the Tenderloin area 
contains many landmarks including government buildings, 
theaters, hotels, restaurants, shopping areas and many 
tourist attractions and is a densely populated area with a 
high crime rate. Both elderly people and young people live 
among a large number of parolees and probationers. The 
latter two groups have made this area resistant to traditional 
crime prevention and social service efforts. In addition, the 
problems of homelessness, unemployment, dirty streets and 
sidewalks and poor lighting complicate efforts to provide 
needed intervention. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



?a 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Operation Revitalization will consist primarily of 
enforcement activities designed to target, apprehend and 
incapacitate the violent street criminals who account for a 
disproportionate percentage of criminal activity. The Police 
Department has a commitment from all agencies involved in 
Operation Revitalization to work together in a disciplined 
assault on Tenderloin violent crime and drug abuse. The 
specific narcotics strategy will be to attack street sales of 
drugs by using buy-bust operations. 



Budget: Police Department 

Overtime for Q2 Police Officers $45,000 

(approximately 1,600 hours) The Narcotics 
Bureau will conduct approximately 25 days of 
buy-bust operations, including extensive use of 
videotape and photographic recording of the 
undercover operations to provide more 
conclusive evidence leading to more successful 
prosecutions. 

Overtime for Q2 Police Officers 45,000 

(approximately 1,600 hours) Community 
policing aimed at intensifying efforts to develop 
cooperative relationships with and among the 
citizens, merchants, community organizations 
and government agencies in the Tenderloin 
area. The intensified community policing will 
include additional foot patrols, bicycle patrols 
and mobile patrols as well as community 
relations activities, neighborhood organizing, 
and crime prevention activities. 

Overtime for Q2 Police Officers 13,300 

(approximately 400 hours) The Police 
Department would expand their successful 
Elementary School Drug Education and Middle 
School Law Enforcement Programs to Galileo 
High School, that serves the Tenderloin. These 
programs include placing two Police Officers at 
the schools on a regularly scheduled basis to 
establish a uniformed presence. 

Overtime for 8260 Criminalist 

(Crime Lab technician) 9,000 

(approximately 200 hours) Additional narcotics 
testing work corresponding to the increased 
activity resulting from the buy-bust operations. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Police De partment-Contractua l Services 

San Francisco Safety Awareness 

For Everyone (SAFE). Inc. $38,000 

Funding for 1.5 FTEs. SAFE will conduct a 

comprehensive crime prevention/education and 

community organizing program for residential 

hotels and multiple unit dwellings including 

safety awareness training for the elderly, home 

and street safety presentations for children, 

drug education for high school age youth and a 

business watch program. Training will be 

provided in the Spanish, Cantonese, 

Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian and Hmong 

languages. Four Task Force Police Officers will 

work with SAFE in the areas of crime prevention 

and building code enforcement of health and 

safety violations in dilapidated hotels and crack 

houses. SAFE will work to prevent crime in 

senior housing, residential hotels, multiple unit 

dwellings and small businesses. 

North of Market Planning Coalition 38,000 

Funding for 1.5 FTEs. The North of Market 
Planning Coalition will coordinate landlord and 
tenant trainings, organize resident advocacy 
groups and resident organizations to lobby for 
enforcement of existing housing codes and 
monitor neighborhood land use planning. The 
North of Market Planning Coalition will work 
with developers to identify sites for new family 
housing in the Tenderloin in order to establish a 
stable residential population. 

Vietnamese Youth Development Center 38,000 

Funding for 1.5 FTEs. The Vietnamese Youth 
Development Center will implement a youth 
leadership development program that will train 
ten youth residents of the Tenderloin in helping 
and communication skills, self-esteem, cultural 
identity and pride, drug education and 
exploration of teen, senior and community 
issues. These programs will be conducted in 
conjunction with the North of Market Senior 
Services programs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



North of Market Senior Services $38,000 

Funding for 1.5 FTEs. The North of Market 
Senior Services will identify a core group of ten 
older adults to participate in intergenerational 
programming, will train seniors to act as 
mentors and trainers of youth participants, and 
will assist in coordination of joint community 
events. These programs will be conducted in 
conjunction with the Vietnamese Youth 
Development Center programs. 

Other Contracts 14,000 

The Police Department will contract with PG&E 
and others to increase the street lighting by 
replacing 200 watt bulbs with 400 watt bulbs in 
selected street lights ($5,000). The Police 
Department will also contract for an extensive 
sidewalk steam-cleaning effort ($9,000). 

District Attorney 

1- 8178 Senior Attorney, Civil and Criminal 50,000 

The District Attorney's Office will staff one Trial 
Attorney II position to aggressively prosecute all 
cases arising from this project and to deal with 
code enforcement The District Attorney staff 
will also train Police Officers in report writing 
techniques that will enhance the conviction 
potential of cases. 

1-8131 Victim Witness Investigator II 12,825 

The District Attorney's Office will supply a 
victim/witness advocate to supervise interns that 
will staff an outstation in the Tenderloin and 
provide such services as crisis intervention, 
resource and referral counseling and criminal 
justice advocacy. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Adult Probation Department 

1-8442 Senior Probation Officer $63,875 

The Adult Probation component will provide a 
Senior Probation Officer (including salary, 
fringe benefits, night differential and overtime 
for one year) to intensively supervise 25 
probationers in the Tenderloin. The Senior 
Probation Officer will be a liaison to the Police 
Department and will facilitate the enforcement 
of warrantless searches (probationers can be 
searched by a Probation Officer without the 
necessity of a warrant as a condition of their 
probation). The Senior Probation Officer will also 
refer probationers involved in the project to 
vocational and job training, to academic schools 
and to job placements. 

Sheriffs Department 

1-8304 Deputy Sheriff 30,000 

Funding would be provided for one Deputy 
Sheriff position for six months. The Deputy 
Sheriff and approximately six prisoners from 
the Sheriffs Work Alternative Program (SWAP) 
will clean the Tenderloin area five days a week 
by sweeping streets, washing walls and painting 
buildings. In cooperation with the Police 
Department, the Deputy Sheriff will be a visible 
presence in the community to enhance 
community relations and to deter criminal 
activities. 

City Attorney 

1-8178 Senior Attorney, Civil and Criminal 20,000 

The proposed funding would provide 0.2 FTE of a 
Senior Attorney, Civil and Criminal. The City 
Attorney's Office has initiated the Code 
Enforcement Task Force that is comprised of 
inspectors from the Bureau of Building 
Inspection, Fire Department, Police 
Department, Department of Public Health, 
Planning Department and the City Attorney's 
Office. The Task Force meets monthly to 
compare complaints they have received, plan 
joint inspections of properties and cooperate to 
abate or close properties that are involved in 
drugs if the owners do not eliminate the drug 
activity. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Grant Match: 

Comments: 



Receivership Fund $15,000 

The City Attorney's Office has initiated the 
Receivership Program that secures a court 
appointed receiver to act in a property owner's 
place to abate code violations if the owner refuses 
to do so. The cost of abatement activities are 
either paid by the owner, deducted from rents 
collected by the receiver or deducted from the 
proceeds of the sale of the property by the 
receiver. The proposed $15,000 Fund will be used 
for the initial costs of the receiver such as 
obtaining security guards and erecting fences 
and signs. 

Audit (Police Department-Contractual Services) 5,000 

The grantor allows one percent of total grant 
funding for an audit of grant activities. The 
auditor will be selected by competitive bid. 

Indirect Costs 25.000 

The grantor allows five percent of total grant 
funding for indirect costs. 

Grant Total $500,000 

A match is not requirement for the proposed grant. 

1. Operation of the Tenderloin Operation Revitalization 
Program will be guided by a steering committee which 
includes employees of the San Francisco Police Department, 
Adult Probation, the District Attorney's Office and the 
Sheriffs Department. 

2. A copy of the Disability Checklist is included in the file. 

3. The Summary of Grant Request is attached. 

4. The grant application deadline was June 18, 1992 and the 
Police Department has already applied for this grant. 
Furthermore, the accept and expend authorization for this 
grant is retroactive to June 30, 1992. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution should be amended for retroactivity. According to 
Lieutenant Ryan, the Police Department's grant coordinator, 
no monies have been spent to date during the start-up period 
(the first six months) of the proposed grant term. 

5. The proposed resolution would also authorize $25,000 for 
indirect costs, based on five percent of the total grant. 
Although the body of the proposed resolution includes the 
$25,000 for indirect costs, the title of the proposed resolution 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

should be amended to reflect inclusion of $25,000 for indirect 
costs. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution to include 
$25,000 of the proposed grant based on five percent of the total 
grant, for indirect costs. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Police 
Department to retroactively apply for and accept the proposed 
grant. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Attachment 



Office of Criminal Justice Planning i- - Francisco Police Dept. 



Cnr.ior 



Division 



l.o 



inaci rcrjon Ray Johnson Section Fiscal 



1130 K Street I Contact Person I ; t ;, Lawrence „ Ryan 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone (Alb) 553-13U5 



Amount Rcques-ed S 500,000.00 Application Deadline 6/18/92 



Term: Fru^r, 6/30/92 Jo 12/31/93 Notification Expected 7/6/92 



Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Ooard 



i Itfm Dtscriniion: Request io (apply for) (accept and expend) 3 (new) (conunuaoon) (allocation) (juumcniauon. 10 a) 
<c -~ -v~'- — ' gram in the amount of S 500 , 000 . O Qrom the period of 6/30/92 io _ 12/31/93 

to provide Tenderloin Area Revitalization __ ^vicc: 

The Tenderloin has high crime rate, including drug related offenses, violne t 

crime and crimes against elderly. The area has a problem with refuse and 

graf f itti. There is a need tor youth programs and code enforcement tor 

violations by building owners. 

HI. Oi-tcome</Ofri>-:tives: 

Intensive arrest and prosecution effort. New street lights, steam cleaning 

the streets, and clean-up by SWAP Program" Institute youth programs and code 
enforcement. 

[V, r .f r TT* of R'ch"-tinn or Tcrminntipn of Th-"*'* Funds: 

Continued decline in the neighborhood, violent crime and drug sale proliferation 



V, Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. P Col. C Col, n Rto. .Vatch Ansrovrd to 

T-o Vtvi Aw ?»«i Yci:/Oic- Precoma Chine: 

Grant A.ou.t '_ $500 ,000 1 00 

Personnel 

Equipment 

■Contract Src. $152,000. 00 

Mat. & supp. $ 5,000. 00 

Facilities/Space . 



Otter $ 5.000. 00 

Indirect Costs $ 25.000. 00 

VT r>^ ;? °rnr.«h. 



XII. . P-tr-jon-nd 
FAT CSC 
P/7 CSC 
Cca tractu al 



Source(s) of non-grant fundlog for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
N/A 

Will grant fuoded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, Ho«*? 

no 

* "II*. Conlraciual St^It*: Open Did Sole Source * ' -'■—"-- — -» i -— - <- ^~^^f^<- 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item li - File 38-92-22.1 



Item: 

Department: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Request for release of reserve funds in the amount of 
$20,000 for financial advisory services. 

Chief Administrative Officer 

In August 1992, the Board authorized the Chief 
Administrative Officer to accept a gift of $170,000 from 
Catellus Development Corporation to provide financial 
consulting and legal services associated with the formation 
of a Community Facilities District for the Mission Bay 
Project (File 38-92-22). 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 255-91-7) finding that the Board of Supervisors 
intends to conduct proceedings for the establishment of a 
Community Facilities District (CFD). Under the Mello-Roos 
Community Facilities Act of 1982, communities can form 
CFDs, which use the property tax increments resulting 
from new development in a district to finance public 
improvements and public capital facilities. 

According to the Development Agreement between the City 
and Catellus Development Corporation, the CFD would 
provide financing for the infrastructure and certain public 
facilities related to the Mission Bay Project. The funds 
provided by Catellus will be used to pay for the following 
services related to the Community Facilities District: 



Special Tax Consultant 
Financial Adviser 
Bond Counsel 

Total 



$70,000 
20,000 
80.000 



$170,000 



At the time that authorization to accept the $170,000 gift 
was approved (File 38-92-22), consultants had already been 
selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process 
to perform each of these services. However, at the request 
of the CAO, $100,000 was placed on reserve by the Finance 
Committee pending establishment of the Community 
Facilities District. 

1. According to the CAO, the following consultants and 
firms were selected through a Request for Proposal process 
to perform services related to the CFD: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Bond Counsel: Brown & Wood/Pamela S. Jew, a joint 
venture. Pamela Jew is an MBE/WBE firm. 

Tax Consultant: Economic and Planning Systems, a non- 
MBE/WBE firm. According to the CAO, although Requests 
for Proposals were distributed to Human Rights 
Commission registered MBE/WBE firms, no bids were 
received from MBE/WBE firms. 

Financial Advisers: Evanson Dodge and Charles A. Bell 
Securities, a joint venture. Charles A. Bell is an MBE firm. 

2. The $20,000 in reserve funds which the CAO is 
requesting at this time would be used to finance the 
services of the financial advisers, Evanson Dodge and 
Charles A. Bell Securities, a joint venture. As noted above, 
the funds were placed on reserve by the Finance Committee 
pending establishment of the Community Facilities District. 

3. According to Ms. Laura Lockwood Wagner of the CAO's 
office, the Community Facilities District has not yet been 
formed. However, Ms. Lockwood Wagner indicates that the 
CAO is unable to execute a contract with the proposed 
contractor while the funds are on reserve, because the 
Controller will not certify that funds have been 
appropriated for the contract. 

Therefore, the CAO is requesting release of reserve funds in 
the amount of $20,000 in order to execute the contract with 
Evanson Dodge and Charles A. Bell Securities for financial 
advisory services. Ms. Lockwood-Wagner states that the 
contract which the CAO would execute, once funds have 
been released, provides that Evanson Dodge and Charles A. 
Bell Securities will not be paid for its services unless and 
until the CFD is formed. 

4. The CAO was able to execute a contract with Economic 
and Planning Systems, the tax consultant, because the 
funds for that contract were not placed on reserve. The 
CAO will request release of the remaining $80,000 which 
was placed on reserve to finance the services of Bond 
Counsel, Brown & Wood/Pamela Jew, when the contract for 
Bond Counsel is prepared for execution, according to Ms. 
Lockwood-Wagner. 

5. Ms. Lockwood-Wagner indicates that the Community 
Facilities District is expected to be formed in approximately 
4 to 6 months. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Recommendation: Approve the request for release of reserve funds in the 
amount of $20,000. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item Ik - File 146-92-2.1 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description: 



Recommendation: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Management Information Systems 

Request to release reserved funds, Department of Public 
Health - Management Information Systems, in the amount of 
$10,979, for the CHIRN Project, computer equipment. 

$10,979 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

Outreach Health Services for High Risk Immigrant/Refugee 
Children and their Families (also known as the Child Health 
Initiative for Immigrant/Refugee Newcomers, or CHIRN) 

On February 12, 1992, the Finance Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors approved a resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health 
Services to accept and expend a grant of $600,000, placing 
$73,639 on reserve. Of the amount reserved, $4,239 was 
reserved for computer equipment pending the Electronic 
Information Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) 
approval, and $69,400 was reserved pending identification of 
the consultant. 

The total budget for computer equipment which was included 
in the original grant was $10,979. However, $6,740 of the total 
$10,979 was never placed on reserve for computer equipment. 
Only the balance of $4,239 was placed on reserve for computer 
equipment. Therefore, the DPH is currently requesting that 
$4,239 be released for the purchase of computer equipment. 

EIPSC has approved the Department's proposed computer 
purchases. A letter to that effect is in the file. 

Release $4,239 for computer equipment previously reserved 
pending EIPSC approval. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 2 - File 97-92-58 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 4 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by adding a new Section 4.21 to name the Civic Auditorium in 
honor of Bill Graham, as the "Bill Graham Auditorium." 

The proposed ordinance states the following: 

Bill Graham was respected by the music industry and appreciated by 
audiences for his top-quality concert productions and large-scale events that 
began in San Francisco 25 years ago. 

Bill Graham used his resources to energize friends, family, schools, 
churches and businesses in supporting causes for the betterment of the 
community. 

Bill Graham was regarded as an articulate spokesperson for rock and roll 
music, freedom of speech, artistic and human rights, environmental 
protection, and peace. 

The talents of San Francisco musicians were recognized and promoted by 
Bill Graham, which led to the widespread success of such groups as Santana, 
Jefferson Airplane, and the Grateful Dead. 

Bill Graham's opening of the Fillmore Auditorium and production of 
concerts in Golden Gate Park 25 years ago created an era in rock music that 
was widely enjoyed by residents of San Francisco and the Bay Area, and 
fostered a period that will carry nostalgia for a long-time to come. 

Comment 

Mr. Jack Moerschbaecher of the Convention Facilities Department states 
that a plaque commemorating Mr. Graham could be placed in the lobby of the Civic 
Auditorium. Mr. Moerschbaecher has not estimated the cost of such a plaque. Mr. 
Moerschbaecher indicates that to avoid incurring additional publication or 
materials costs, if the proposed ordinance is approved, existing stationery and 
promotional supplies will be exhausted before new materials are ordered that would 
include the new name of the Civic Auditorium. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed ordinance to amend the Administrative Code to 
name the San Francisco Civic Auditorium after Bill Graham is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 3 - File 97-92-40 

Note: This item was transferred from the City Services Committee meeting 
of September 15, 1992. 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending the City's Administrative Code by 
adding Section 5. 108. A to establish a County Veteran 
Service Officer within the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer. 

State law authorizes the Board of Supervisors of each 
County to designate a County Veteran Service Officer 
(CVSO) and to provide the CVSO with appropriate staffing 
and other resources, in order to assist veterans to obtain 
State and Federal veteran's benefits. Although 55 of 
California's 58 Counties have such an Office, San Francisco 
does not. 

The proposed ordinance would establish a County Veteran 
Service Officer within the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO) in order to administer aid to indigent 
veterans and to investigate claims for benefits under State 
or Federal law. The effort to establish such an office has 
resulted from the planned relocation of State and Federal 
Veterans Affairs offices from San Francisco to Oakland in 
March, 1993, which will diminish veterans' access to 
veterans service organizations. 

On September 15, 1992, the City Services Committee 
recommended approval of the proposed ordinance, but 
recommended that the Finance Committee consider the 
impact of increased veterans benefits on General Fund 
expenditures for social services, as well as potential sources 
of funding, other than the General Fund, for the proposed 
CVSO. 

The CAO has proposed to incorporate the CVSO with the 
Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian, which 
currently provides services to some veterans. The County 
Veteran Service Officer is required by California law to be a 
veteran. The current Public Administrator/Public Guardian 
is a veteran. 

Under the CAO's proposal, the first year CVSO budget 
would be $409,200. This amount would be partially offset 
by a State subvention estimated at $40,000 in the first year, 
and also includes $115,238 in salary and fringe benefits for 
existing staff in the office of the Public Administrator/ 
Public Guardian. The CAO estimates that total new costs 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Li 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Budget: 



to the City for the CVSO in the first year would be 
$293,962. The Budget Analyst estimates total expenditures 
for an 8-month period in Fiscal Year 1992-93 at $195,975. 
If the estimated State subvention of $40,000 is received, net 
General Fund expenditures over 8 months are estimated at 
$155,975. 

Personnel 



1126 Public Administrator 
4231 Sr. Estate Investigator 
4230 Estate Investigator 
2905 Sr. Eligibility Worker 
1650 Accountant 
1446 Secretary II 
Subtotal 



ZXE 


Amount 


.25 


$20,795 


1.00 


45,623 


2.00 


82,892 


1.50 


62,169 


.25 


9,226 


1.00 


36.566 


6.00 


$257,271 



64.318 



Fringe Benefits (@ 25 percent) 

Subtotal $321,589 

Operating Costs 

EDP Services 

Travel 

Miscellaneous Services 

Telephone 

Materials and Supplies 

Rent (2,000 sq. ft.) 

Real Estate Dept. 

Central Shop-Maintenance 

Central Shop-Fuel 

Reproduction 

Subtotal 67,611 

Start Up Costs 
EDP Services 
Equipment Purchase 
Automobile Purchase 
Subtotal 



$16,800 

12,000 

5,157 

4,760 

1,990 

24,000 

1,000 

1,054 

500 

350 



$4,000 

6,000 

10-000 



20.000 

Total $409,200 

Less Existing Public Administrator/Public Guardian Staff (115.238) 
Net New First Year General Fund Contribution Required $293,962 



General Fund Contribution over 8 Months of FY 1992-93 $195,975 
(66.6 percent of First Year Cost) 

Less Estimated State Subvention (40.000) 

Net Estimated General Fund Contribution, FY 1992-93 $155,975 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Comments: 



1. Of the proposed $409,200 budget for the County Veterans 
Service Office, $115,238 would consist of existing personnel 
costs in the Office of the Public Administrator/Public 
Guardian (PA/PG). According to Mr. Ricardo Hernandez, 
the Public Administrator/Public Guardian, certain PA/PG 
positions, equivalent to 2.0 FTE, would be transferred to 
the CVSO budget because these employees currently 
perform services on behalf of veterans, including estate 
management and conservatorships. These activities would 
be incorporated into the functions of the CVSO. The 
classifications to be transferred would be the Public 
Administrator/Public Guardian (.25 FTE), Senior Eligibility 
Workers (1.5 FTE), and an Accountant (.25 FTE). 

Mr. Hernandez states that salary and fringe benefit costs 
for these employees are now paid from the General Fund. 
Since the proposed $409,200 CVSO budget includes 
$115,238 for existing positions which are already funded, 
the amount of new funding needed to establish the CVSO 
for the first year is $293,962. 

2. If the CVSO is established on November 1, 1992, the 
General Fund contribution in Fiscal Year 1992-93 would be 
$195,975. 

3. The proposed budget includes a $40,000 estimated 
subvention from the California Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Mr. Gerald Rucker of the California Department of 
Veterans Affairs reports that his office has estimated that 
$40,000 in State funds would be allocated to San Francisco 
in 1992-93, based on the inception of services in November 
1992. 

Mr. Rucker reports that State subvention funds include 
$2,500 to offset the salary of the County Veterans Service 
Officer and $5,000 for administrative costs. Thus, a 
minimum of $7,500 would be reimbursed by the State. The 
State also allocates subvention funds on the basis of claim 
forms filed and awards granted by the Federal Veterans 
Administration. Each claim form and each award 
generated by a CVSO counts as a single performance credit 
for the CVSO. Mr. Rucker has estimated that in addition to 
the $7,500, the proposed San Francisco CVSO would receive 
$32,500 for approximately 2,400 claim forms and awards 
during fiscal year 1992-93, resulting in a total estimated 
subvention of $40,000 in 1992-93. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



L-\ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Performance-based State subventions are not awarded at 
an established rate. Rather, the State calculates the total 
number of claims filed each year State-wide and allocates 
available funds in proportion to a County's share of the 
total. The Budget Analyst notes that it is doubtful that by 
increasing the number of claims filed, a CVSO can 
significantly increase its share of the State subvention, 
because the increase in local claims would be a very small 
percentage of all claims State-wide. 

Mr. Rucker indicates that legislation is currently pending 
before the State Legislature which would authorize 
additional funds for this program through the sale of 
customized vehicle license plates. Mr. Rucker reports that 
the State Department of Finance has estimated that this 
legislation would increase State allocations to CVSOs by 
approximately 12 percent, beginning in 1994-95. The 
Budget Analyst notes that a 12 percent increase in San 
Francisco's estimated 1992-93 State subvention of $40,000 
would result in a total State subvention of $44,800. 

4. The California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA) 
estimates that 76,490 veterans were residents of San 
Francisco in March, 1991, and that 8,498, or approximately 
11 percent of these veterans were receiving veterans 
benefits. According to CDVA, the average monthly 
payment to benefit recipients in Northern California in 
1990 was $449, compared to an average monthly payment 
of $339 to veterans residing in San Francisco. CDVA 
estimates that if average monthly benefit levels for San 
Francisco's veterans were to increase by $110 to $449, equal 
to the Northern California average monthly payment, 
through the efforts of a CVSO, then San Francisco veterans 
would realize additional annual income of approximately 
$11.2 million. However, there is no firm documentation 
that this increase would be achieved. The Budget Analyst 
notes that if this estimate is accurate, the City could realize 
higher tax revenues if veterans expend higher levels of 
income within the City. 

5. The CDVA reports that establishing a San Francisco 
CVSO could result in reductions in General Assistance 
payments to veterans who qualify for veterans benefits. 
However, there is no firm documentation that such 
reductions would be achieved. 

According to Ms. Dorothy Enisman of the San Francisco 
Department of Social Services (DSS), General Assistance 
eligibility workers do not currently apply to the U.S. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Veterans Administration (USVA) for benefits on behalf of 
veterans who apply for General Assistance. DSS does 
request information from the USVA concerning whether the 
applicant is currently receiving veterans benefits. Ms. 
Enisman estimates that in 99.9 percent of cases, such an 
inquiry to the USVA on behalf of an identified veteran 
reveals that the veteran is not receiving veterans benefits. 

According to Mr. Hernandez, Social Service Departments in 
other California Counties ordinarily refer General 
Assistance applicants who are veterans to the CVSO to 
evaluate their eligibility for veterans benefits. Mr. Rucker 
states that a standard form issued by the California 
Department of Social Services is available for this purpose, 
and that State subvention funds to County CVSO's are 
based in part on MediCal cost avoidance activities. Mr. 
Hernandez states that he would organize a similar referral 
process between the CVSO and the Department of Social 
Services (DSS) in San Francisco, if the CVSO is created. 

6. The Budget Analyst has contacted representatives of 
Swords to Plowshares, Disabled American Veterans, and 
the Monterey and Sacramento County Veterans Service 
Officers in an effort to understand veterans' eligibility for 
benefits. The following explanation of veterans benefits is 
based on these discussions. 

The monetary benefits which are available to qualified 
veterans, and which could potentially offset County General 
Assistance expenditures for veterans, include Disability 
Compensation and Pensions. 

Disability Compensation requires a showing that the 
veteran has been partially or totally disabled as a result of 
military service. Benefits for such service-connected 
disabilities are paid in proportion to the extent of the 
disability (from 10 to 100 percent, as determined according 
to VA guidelines). The amount of the benefit ranges from 
$83 per month for a 10 percent disability to $1,680 per 
month for full disability. 

Disability Compensation would reduce a veteran's 
eligibility for General Assistance on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis. At a disability rating of 40 percent, the disability 
compensation of $342 per month would essentially 
eliminate the maximum General Assistance award of $345 
per month. However, to qualify under this program, it 
must be shown that the veteran's disability resulted 
directly from his or her military service. In addition, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



AS 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



disability cannot be the result of "willful misconduct." The 
USVA regards alcohol or drug use which results in 
disability to be "willful misconduct," although such use can 
also be regarded as symptomatic of certain recognized 
disorders, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 
Veterans' advocates report that claims for service-connected 
disabilities must be carefully analyzed, prepared, and 
documented in order to be successful. 

Pensions are provided to veterans who are permanently and 
totally disabled for any reason, have limited income, and 
have at least 90 days of military service, including at least 
one day during a period of war. Pensions provide a 
subsistence level of income, currently equal to $7,397 
annually for a veteran with no dependents, but pensions 
are reduced if the veteran has other sources of income or 
significant assets. Although a pension is available 
regardless of the reason for the disability, the disability 
must be total. Persons with total disabilities may already 
be less likely to receive General Assistance, since they are 
often eligible for Federal Supplemental Security Income. 

7. DSS does not maintain statistics concerning the number 
of General Assistance recipients who are veterans. 
However, a recent DSS survey indicates that 28 percent of 
GA applicants in 1989 were age 41-60 (persons who were of 
military age during the Vietnam conflict), while another 
34.5 percent were age 31-40 (including some who were of 
military age during Vietnam). Among GA recipients who 
received benefits for more than one year, approximately 6.5 
percent had a psychological disorder and approximately 54 
percent had significant health problems or disabilities 
which prevented them from working. 

Since Ms. Enisman reports that almost every veteran who 
applies for General Assistance is found not to be receiving 
any veterans benefits, and DSS does not apply for such 
benefits, the Budget Analyst believes that a reasonable 
potential does exist to offset General Assistance payments 
for veterans by seeking disability compensation and 
pensions. However, the amount of savings which could be 
realized, if at all, cannot be quantified since statistics are 
not available concerning the veteran status of GA 
recipients. 

8. Veterans who have at least a 20 percent service- 
connected disability, or who receive a VA pension due to full 
disability regardless of cause, are eligible for health care 
benefits through Veterans Administration facilities. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Budget Analyst notes that such health care benefits could 
offset the cost of health care provided through County 
facilities, although the fiscal effects of any such benefit 
cannot be established at this time. Veterans with these 
disabilities are also eligible to receive vocational 
rehabilitation through the Veterans Administration. 

9. Certain types of veterans benefits are available to 
spouses and dependents of veterans. These benefits include 
a non-service connected death benefit, subject to income 
guidelines, for survivors of war-time veterans. 

Mr. Hernandez states that a particular need exists in San 
Francisco for assistance to Asian-American veterans and 
their spouses, widows, or children, particularly those who 
are Vietnamese or Filipino. Mr. Hernandez states that 
Federal legislation was enacted earlier this year which 
recognized the U.S. citizenship claims of veterans who 
served in the Philippine Scouts, and who may now be 
eligible for veterans benefits for the first time. Mr. 
Hernandez also reports that the homeless population is 
thought to consist of large numbers of veterans, who could 
receive assistance in obtaining benefits through a CVSO. 

10. According to Ms. Kym Valdez, Human Services Program 
Director for Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit veterans 
services agency, applications for veterans benefits are 
extremely complex and the benefits are often difficult to 
obtain. Ms. Valdez states that the U.S. Veterans 
Administration, through its regional offices, usually does 
not assist veterans in filing claims, but expects claims to be 
complete and fully documented before they will be 
considered. Mr. Hernandez states that the State of 
California established the State network of CVSO offices in 
response to the lack of Federal outreach to veterans and the 
difficulty veterans faced in obtaining benefits. 

All of the veterans benefit counselors who were contacted 
for this report have emphasized that success in obtaining 
veterans benefits requires aggressive advocacy efforts and 
considerable proficiency in benefit requirements. 

11. Under State law, the County Veterans Services Officer 
is required to be a veteran. Mr. Hernandez, who would 
serve as the CVSO, is a veteran. According to the City 
Attorney's Office, to combine the positions of PA/PG and 
CVSO at this time would not require that all future 
candidates for the position of Public Administrator/Public 
Guardian must also be veterans. However, if a non-veteran 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Recommendation: 



PA/PG is appointed in the future, according to the City 
Attorney's Office, the CVSO position would have to be 
transferred elsewhere. 

12. Mr. Hernandez reports that a request for a 
supplemental appropriation was submitted to the Mayor 
with the proposed ordinance, but that the Controller has 
not certified that funds will be available. On July 20, 1992 
a proposed ordinance (File No. 102-92-4) was submitted to 
the Board of Supervisors to amend the Interim Annual 
Salary Ordinance to add the 4 new positions which are 
included in the proposed CVSO budget, but the proposed 
ordinance has not yet been considered by the Finance 
Committee. If the CVSO is established, the proposed 
budget should be evaluated in detail at the time the 
requested appropriation is considered. 

13. The Budget Analyst considers this program, which 
would add 6 new FTEs, to be a worthy program, but 
cautions against all new expenditures given the City's fiscal 
problems. As previously noted, the total annual cost for 
this new program is $409,200, of which the additional 
General Fund expenses in the first year would be $293,962. 

14. Since the Controller has not yet certified that funds 
would be available for the CVSO if the agency is 
established, Mr. Hernandez has requested that the 
proposed ordinance to establish the office be continued to 
the call of the chair. 

Continue the proposed ordinance to the call of the Chair, as 
requested by the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 4 - File 188-92-1 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Hetch Hetchy 

Item: Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts 

with Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock 
Irrigation Districts for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy 
hydroelectric power. 

Description: On February 29, 1988, the Board of Supervisors passed 

Ordinance 87-88 (File 446-87-4.1) which approved long term 
agreements between Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (MID & TID) and the City and County of San 
Francisco. The terms of the agreements are from April 1988 
to June 2015 or 27 years and three months. Under these long 
term agreements, the City has agreed to the delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power to the Districts including Class 1 
loads of the MID & TID (power for irrigation pumping and 
District municipal purposes) and Class 3 loads (energy re- 
sold by the MID and TID to its customers). 

Hetch Hetchy is obligated to sell Class 1 power to the MID and 
TID at cost because of the agreements and, according to 
Hetch Hetchy, the Districts' prior water and hydroelectric 
power rights identified in the Raker Act. Hetch Hetchy sells 
Class 3 power to the MID and TID at a higher negotiated rate 
and in accordance with subject agreements. Under the 
agreements, Hetch Hetchy must provide all Class 3 
hydroelectric power demanded by the Districts, up to Hetch 
Hetchy's "Project Dependable Capacity" (see Comment 3 
below) at contractually specified rates, regardless of whether 
Hetch Hetchy is actually generating sufficient power or must 
purchase additional power from PG&E. Power not used for 
Class 1 purposes is deemed to be Class 3 power and is paid for 
at the higher rate. 

Hetch Hetchy reports that over a 16 month period (March 
1991 through June 1992) revenues derived from the sale of 
hydroelectric power to MID and TID exceeded the cost of 
power purchased from PG&E by $414,841 (see Attachment 1). 
Hetch Hetchy's reported financial data is summarized as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 



49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Month/Year 



Purchase 
of Power 
from PG&E 



Sale of 
Power to 
MID/TIP 



Gain/Loss 



Mar-1991 $797,366 

Apr-1991 3,027 

(May- 1991 through Aug-1991 
Sep-1991 941,546 

Oct-1991 709,320 

Nov-1991 958,476 

Dec-1991 1,061,560 

Jan-1992 914,205 

Feb-1992 793,616 

(Mar- 1992 through Jun-1992 



$660,247 ($137,120) 

3,958 931 

- no purchases or sale of purchase power) 

1,232,529 290,983 

782,798 73,478 

1,032,539 74,063 

1,092,571 31,011 

878,436 (35,769) 

910,878 117,263 

■ no purchases or sale of purchase power) 



Totals 



$6,179,116 $6,593,956 



$414,840 



The City also has a 27 year and three month contract (April 
1988 to June 2015) with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E) for services and power purchase on an "if and as 
needed" basis. The prices under the contract are at rates 
subject to renegotiation periodically. The contract specifies 
that Hetch Hetchy will receive firming services from PG&E 
(fixed charges for capacity reserves whether actually used or 
not by Hetch Hetchy) necessary to support the "Project 
Dependable Capacity". 



Comments: 1. Hetch Hetchy reports that over the last 16 months their 

costs of capacity reserves purchased from PG&E have 
resulted in a savings of $1,065,880 (see Attachment 2). The 
$1,065,880 is characterized by Hetch Hetchy as "what we 
avoided paying for capacity." Hetch Hetchy's monthly cost to 
PG&E for a 59,800 kilowatt capacity reserve at a wholesale 
price of $6.25 per kilowatt is $373,750 and over a 16 month 
period that cost totals $5,980,000 ($373,750 x 16). Based on 
actual use of reserve capacity, which if purchased at a higher 
cost of $16,499 per kilowatt from PG&E, would be according to 
Hetch Hetchy, $7,045,880 during that 16 month period. 

According to Mr. Lawrence Klein, Deputy General Manager 
of Hetch Hetchy, this is a valid comparison since Hetch 
Hetchy is precluded from purchasing capacity reserve 
elsewhere without five years notice to PG&E by the agreement 
with PG&E, and therefore would have to pay PG&E rates 
without the availability of capacity reserves from PG&E. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



The Budget Analyst notes however, that neither the capacity 
reserve costs nor the charges for purchased power would be 
needed if it were not for the provisions of the agreements with 
MID and TID. 

2. The Budget Analyst further notes that the cost of PG&E 
provision of adequate reserve power to meet Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation District demands, up to Hetch Hetchy's 
"Project Dependable Capacity" (see Comment 3 below), would 
be totally avoidable except for the fact that the provisions of 
the 1987 agreements with the Districts require Hetch Hetchy 
to meet such demands and that the demands can only be met 
through the agreement between Hetch Hetchy and PG&E. 

Therefore, if these agreements had not been approved in their 
present form, Hetch Hetchy would not have incurred the 
capacity reserve costs or any incremental costs for purchased 
power to meet the demands of the Districts for Class 3 power. 

Assuming that Hetch Hetchy could have sold any available 
hydroelectric power at wholesale rates at least equivalent to 
rates paid by the Districts for Class 3 power purchases, Hetch 
Hetchy would not have incurred capacity reserve charges of 
$5,980,000 or net revenues, according to Hetch Hetchy's 
figures, of $414,840, for purchased power since March 1991. 
The net cost to Hetch Hetchy therefore would amount to 
$5,565,159 ($5,980,000 in capacity reserve costs less $414,841 in 
reported net revenue) based on data supplied by Hetch 
Hetchy. 

Mr. Klein reports however, that without the firm power 
supply provided by the PG&E agreement, the City would not 
have realized equivalent revenue as has been received from 
the District for Class 3 power. 

3. The provisions of the current long term agreements 
between the City and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts include: 

• The full cost of the support charge for PG&E firming 
services, less $700,000 paid by the Districts as part of their 
Class 1 rates, must be paid by Hetch Hetchy. Such services 
are in effect a guarantee by PG&E to provide sufficient 
capacity reserves to support the level of power and energy to 
be provided by Hetch Hetchy. Under the interim agreement 
(1985 to 1988) the City shared that cost equally with the 
Districts. 



BOARD OK SUPKKVLSOKS 

Budget Analyst 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



• The City agrees to meet priorities for delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power, as follows: 

- City municipal loads; 

- Class 1 loads of the Districts per requirement of 

Raker Act; 

- Class 3 power to the Districts (energy resold by the 

Districts to its customers); 

- Airport Tenants and Riverbank Army Munitions 

Plant (operated by Norris Industries). 

• The Districts will have the right to purchase either one 
half of all excess energy or all such energy above the 
requirements of Airport Tenants. 

• The Districts have rights to purchase any increase in 
future Hetch Hetchy "Project Dependable Capacity" (an 
agreed minimum generation capacity Hetch Hetchy is 
able to produce, even in a dry year, approximately 260,000 
kilowatts). 

• The City's rights to withdraw firm capacity from the 
Districts, for the City's municipal purposes, after 
providing five years advance notice. 

4. According to Mr. Lawrence Klein of Hetch Hetchy, all 
charges for hydroelectric energy to the Districts, as identified 
in Attachment 1, except for March 1991, are for Class 3 
energy loads. For March 1991, the total 23,894,700 Kw hours 
sold to MID and TID for $660,247 are divided between 
15,425,000 Kw hours for Class 1 power ($208,884) and 8,469,700 
Kw hours for Class 3 power ($451,363). 

5. Mr. Klein also advises that the City, under its contract 
with PG&E, presently has not identified an alternative source 
to its purchase of capacity reserve other than PG&E. 
However, Mr. Klein states that the City would be required to 
give PG&E notice that the City has selected an alternative to 
its current purchase of energy capacity reserve from PG&E 
and that such a notice would trigger a renegotiation of the 
City's contract because the selection of an alternative energy 
supplier would change the contract's "balance of benefits". 

Mr. Klein further advises that the City has recently become a 
member of the Western Systems Power Pool (WSPP) which 
would permit the City to purchase supplemental energy from 
a WSPP member at a lower rate than the rate charged by 
PG&E. This has resulted in $688,000 in savings, as opposed to 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



purchases from PG&E supplemental energy, since July 1, 
1992. 

6. The Budget Analyst further notes that the subject of this 
hearing requested by the Finance Committee is to consider 
the "fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts". However, the data 
provided by Hetch Hetchy only covers the period of March, 
1991 through June, 1992. These data were prepared by Hetch 
Hetchy in response to a recent newspaper article and not in 
response to the Finance Committee's request for a hearing. 

The Budget Analyst has therefore requested the following 
data on a monthly basis for the full term of the current 
agreements: 

• The amount, in kilowatt hours, of Class 1 power and 
payments for such power consumed by both the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The amount, in kilowatt hours, of Class 3 power and 
payments to Hetch Hetchy for such power consumed by 
both the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The full monthly costs for capacity reserve payments to 
PG&E; 

• The full cost and amount of power purchased from 
PG&E to meet the power consumption demands of the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The incremental payments made by the Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation Districts for the power purchased 
from PG&E; and 

• Any available market data that would provide reliable 
estimates of alternative revenues that could be realized 
by Hetch Hetchy if they were not bound by these 
agreements. 

7. Due to the unavailability of management personnel, 
Hetch Hetchy has requested that this hearing be continued 
one week. 



Recommendation: Continue this item one week. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

si 





















Attachment 1 






lletch Hetchy Water & Powe 
Purchased from l'G&E for resale to the Dlitric 


r 




Companion or Coiti of Powci 


ts and the revenue derived from that sale 




_L 


1 I 


1 1 ! 




— 




PC &E Billing* 


PG&fc BIHlniis 


District Billings 










1 (1> 1 


(2) 


(3) 


(«> 


Month 


What SF paid 
P'J&E (Total) 




What SF paid PGA.F for power to be wild 
to the Districts 


Districts. Total Ciass-3 Firm 
Energy 


Districts Clkis. 1 Power 
(purchased from PG&E) 


What SF charged 

Turlock & Modesto 

for Power 

purchased from 

POAE 


San Francisco's 

net 

benifit/(cost) 






kW-Hra 


$/kW-Hr 


$'* 


kW-Hrs 


$« 


i 






~ M.r-9l" 
























$2,453,968 


* 


23.894.700 


$0.03337 


$797,366 


8,469,700 


$451,363 


15.425.000 


$208,884 


$660,247 


($137,120) 


Apr-yi 


$1,966,670 


97,748 


$0.03097 


$3,027 


18,407.750 


$745,409 






$3,958 


$931 


May-91 


$1,491,360 







n/a 


43.498.245 


$1,352,143 




$0 


SO 


Jun-91 

Jul«91 


$1,514,403 







n-'a 




41.247.512 


$1,219,685 




$0 


$0 


$1,584,159 







n/a 




48,098.850 


$1,628,519 


i 


$0 


$0 


Aug-91 


$1,895,450 







n/a 




45,446,850 


$1,606,062 






$0 


$0 


Sep-91 


$2,865,104 
$2,800,371 




36,836,685 


$0.02556J 


$941,546 


44,932,900 


$1,503,422 I 




$1,232,529 


$290,983 


Oct-91 


22.390,157 


$0.03168 


$709,320 


43.408,950 


$1,517,652 




$782,798 


$73,478 


Nuv-91 


$3,071,512 




27,629.752 


$0.03469 


$958,476 


46,881.400 


$1,751,984 




$1,032,539 


$74,063 


Dcc-91 


$3,031,081 
$2,992,432 




30.787.692 


$0.03448 


$1,061,560 


54.656.9S0 


$1,939,626 


! 


$1,092,571 


$31,011 


Jan-92 


25.380,480 


$0.03602 


$914,205 


58.871,600 


$2,037,586 




$878,436 


($35,769) 


Feb-92 
Mar-92 
Apr-92 


$2,764,473 




25,178,162 


$0.03152 


$793,616 


51,239.230 


$1,853,698 




$910,878 


$117,263 


$1,565,540 







n/a 


.... 


49,848.403 


$1,847,918 




$0 


$0 


$1,521,744 







n'a 
n/a 


43.405,333 


$1,613,933 




$0 


$0 


May-92 


$1,511,281 









38,453,403 


$1,408,652 




$0 


$0 


Jun-92 


$1,820,740 







n/a 




35,949,616 


$1,295,474 




$0 


SO 
















t 




$414,841 


I 


















jin these months generation was so low that we purchased energy to meet both our Claw 1 And Class 3 power obligations to the Distriot*. The kW-Hrs and $'s 
Jof Column (2) reflect this mixed rate sale, Note: Cot. (2) Is used to calculate an average revenue ($/kW-Hr) used to oalculate the revenue In Col (3). 

I 


ill [ill! i I I 



54 



Attachment 2 



Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 


- Covtj of capacity reserve purchased from PG&E compared to costs avoided when - 
_ purchasing supplemental energy. 




I (») 




(2) 


(3) 


What we 
avoided 
paying for 
capacity 




What we paid for capacity reserve 


The 

prepaid 

capacity 

weusod 

(lcW-Mo) 


The Rate 
wc avoided 
paying 
$/kW-Mo 




kW 


$/kW 


$'s 


kW 


$/kW 


S's 


Mar-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 









Apr-91 


59.800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$16,499 


$986,640 


May-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$16,499 


$986,640 


Jun-91 
Jul-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$16,499 




59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 




Aug-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 




Sep-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 


$0 


Oct-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 


$0 


Nov-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 


SO 


Dec-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Jan-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Fet>-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Mar-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Apr-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


47,744 


S17.678 


$844,022 


May-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


OS $17,678 




Jun-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 








$5,980,000 




! $7,045,880 

1 






1 






Net benefit of prepaid capacity reserve = 


$1,065,880 



CAwod\revoomp\BOSI01 1X15 



Primed \0-'2"92 U «6 AM 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 5 - File 42-92-25 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution waiving the requirement that the sponsor of the 
Annual Halloween street closing in the Castro Street area 
provide insurance and waiving all fees except for the street 
closure permit filing fee and the loudspeaker permit filing 
fee. 

According to Section 2.70-3 of the Administrative Code, 
sponsors of events attended by more than 1,000 persons are 
required to provide an insurance policy naming the City as 
an additional insured, in an amount of $1 million or more. 
This insurance requirement may be waived by the Board of 
Supervisors if the event constitutes the exercise of rights 
protected under the First Amendment, and the event sponsor 
submits a sworn statement of indigency. 

According to Section 2.70-6(f) of the Administrative Code, the 
Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and 
Transportation (ISCOTT) determines the fees to be paid by 
events sponsors (aside from the standard Street Closing 
Permit Filing Fee, at $80, which is paid by all events 
sponsors), based on the actual costs to the City of the 
temporary street closing, pursuant to the following schedule: 

Fire Department fee: $129.00 

Public Health Application Fee: 50.00 

Public Health Permit Fee 25.00 

Public Health Fee Per Booth Selling Food 10.00 

Municipal Railway Fee: 4.42 

(per electrically powered vehicle hour) 
Police Department: up to $2,500.00 

(based on 40 percent of the projected 

Police Department costs) 

Any fees paid by events sponsors are to be deposited to the 
City's General Fund and credited to the departments which 
incurred the costs. The Administrative Code includes a 
provision for waiving only the Police Department fees, not for 
waiving any other fees. However, according to Mr. Ted Lakey 
of the City Attorney's Office, since these fees are imposed by 
the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors has the 
inherent power to waive such fees. 

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a non-profit 
organization, organizes the Annual Halloween street closing 
in the Castro Street area. According to the proposed 
resolution, the street closing is intended to further 
educational and First Amendment objectives. The Sisters of 
Perpetual Indulgence has submitted a sworn statement that 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Sf. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

the organization is indigent and does not have the resources 
to pay for the insurance and fees required by the City to 
conduct this event, according to the proposed resolution. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution would waive the 
requirements for insurance and any fees that would be 
required by the City, except fees for the Street Closure Permit 
fee, at $80, and the loudspeaker permit filing fee, at $30, 
pursuant to Administrative Code Section 2.71. 

Comments: 1. The cost to the City of waiving fees for the Annual 

Halloween street closing are estimated to be $2,704 plus $4.42 
per Municipal Railway vehicle hour. 

2. According to Mr. Keith Grand, the City's Risk Manager, 
the costs of waiving the insurance requirement are 
potentially very high. Mr. Grand advises that California law 
specifies joint and several liability. Under joint and several 
liability, each party that is named as co-defendant in any suit 
is liable for up to the entire amount of awarded damages. 
Thus, if a severe injury or substantial damage to property is 
sustained by a spectator, participant or adjacent property 
owner of the Castro Street Halloween event, and the City as 
well as the sponsor of the event is named as a co-defendant in 
a lawsuit, the City would most likely be required to pay the 
full amount of the damages, since the sponsor of the event, 
the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, is indigent. The amount 
owed by the City would not be contingent upon the City's 
relative negligence, but rather would be contingent upon the 
City's ability to pay relative to the other co-defendants, Mr. 
Grand advises. Therefore, the cost of waiving insurance for 
the Halloween event is potentially very high. 

3. Mr. Grand advises that the Risk Manager's Office has 
negotiated an insurance package for a number of major 
events conducted in San Francisco. Through this insurance 
package, organizations can purchase insurance at less than 
the market rate. Ms. Kary Schulman of the Grants for the 
Arts Program advises that all of the participants in the 
package receive funding from Grants for the Arts. In 
addition, each organization that participates in an event, 
such as vendors and performers, are encouraged to be 
separately insured in order for the event's primary sponsor to 
participate in the insurance package. 

4. Major events sponsored by organizations that participate in 
the insurance package include the Saint Patrick's Day 
Parade, Carnival, Minsok, 24th Street Festival, the Columbus 
Day Parade, the Veteran's Day Parade, Cinco de Mayo, the 
Martin Luther King Celebration, and June Teenth. The 
Gay/Lesbian Freedom Day Parade and the Chinese New 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Year celebration were offered participation, but chose to 
provide their own insurance. The premiums range from less 
than $1,000 for the smaller activities that do not include a 
parade to over $6,000 for the major outdoor celebrations. 

5. Mr. Grand advises that the City may wish to consider 
assisting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to support the 
cost of insurance for the Halloween event, rather than 
waiving the insurance requirement. Ms. Schulman advises 
that the Grants for the Arts would not be an appropriate 
source of funds to pay such insurance costs, since the 
Halloween event is a fundraising event, and the Grants for 
Arts, as a City department, is prohibited from financing 
fundraising events. Ms. Schulman advises that supporting 
the insurance costs for one organization may also set a 
precedent for a variety of organizations to request support for 
such costs. 

6. The Finance Committee cannot forward this legislation to 
the Board of Supervisors until at least October 12, 1992, and 
the Annual Halloween street closing occurs on Saturday, 
October 31, 1992. Therefore, the Sisters of Perpetual 
Indulgence would most likely not have adequate time to 
locate insurance or raise adequate funds to pay for 
insurance. However, the Board of Supervisors may wish to 
consider waiving the insurance requirement for the 1992 
Halloween event, with the caveat that the event sponsor will 
be required to provide insurance in ensuing years. The event 
sponsor would therefore have one year to fundraise for 
insurance costs, for example, from Castro Street vendors 
who may also be subject to lawsuits and who would directly 
benefit from the provision of insurance. Alternatively, funds 
for insurance in 1993 could be set aside from any monies 
raised during the 1992 Halloween event. 

7. The Board of Supervisors has waived insurance and other 
fee requirements for the annual Halloween street closing in 
the Castro Street area every year since the event sponsors 
have applied for an official street closing, according to the 
Department of Parking and Traffic. 

8. According to Administrative Code Section 2.71, sponsors of 
street fairs are required to pay the fees noted above, and 
sponsors of athletic events which result in temporary street 
closures are required to entirely reimburse the City for costs 
associated with such street closures. Sgt. Tony Novello of the 
Police Department reports that a number of events that result 
in temporary street closings, such as parades and 
celebrations, cannot be classified as street fairs or athletic 
events. For these events, no fees or costs are recovered by the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



City except for the street closure permit filing fee. There were 
172 public events in 1991-92 for which street closure 
applications were filed. 

9. The Department of Parking and Traffic chairs ISCOTT, 
which is the organization responsible for determining the 
amount of fees owed for an individual event. According to 
Mr. Johnson, when a street application is approved, ISCOTT 
notifies the event sponsor in writing of the amount owed to 
each department pursuant to the Administrative Code. Each 
individual department is responsible to collect such fees. If 
the event sponsor does not pay the fees, and if the 
departments notify ISCOTT to that effect, the event sponsor 
cannot receive permit approval in ensuing years until all 
back fees are paid. 

10. For street fairs, but not for athletic events, the 
Administrative Code currently authorizes fees for: 

• the Department of Public Health, including permit, filing, 
and food booth fees; 

• the Fire Department; and 

• the Municipal Railway. 

The Administrative Code further treats street fairs and 
athletic events differently as follows: 

• For athletic events, full reimbursement for the 
Department of Public Works is authorized, but for street 
fairs, no reimbursement for Department of Public Works 
costs is authorized. 

• For athletic events, full reimbursement for Police 
Department costs is authorized, but for street fairs, only 40 
percent of Police Department costs are reimbursable, up to 
$2,500. 

Finally, the Department of Parking and Traffic is not 
authorized to receive any cost reimbursement, aside from the 
$80 Street Closing Permit Filing fee. 

11. Sgt. Novello advises that the Police Department incurred 
the following costs for enforcement for Halloween festivities 
in 1991: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Exotic Erotic Ball (October 26, 1991) 
City-wide Halloween Celebration 
Polk Street 
Castro Street 
Total 



$10,168 

2,313 

7,499 

67.881 

$87,861 



Recommendation: 



Lt. Novello advises that none of these events is classified as a 
street fair or an athletic event, which are the only two types of 
events for which Police costs may be recovered. Therefore, 
under the current fee schedule, the maximum amount of 
Police costs that could be recovered from the total $87,861 
incurred would be $2,500, or 40 percent of Police costs for the 
Castro Street celebration, with a maximum of $2,500. 

12. Additional revenues could be generated by the City if: (1) 
Fire Department, Public Health, and Municipal Railway fees 
were collected for athletic events; (2) full Police Department 
and Department of Public Works costs were collected for 
street fairs; and (3) reimbursements were collected for the 
traffic control and other costs of the Department of Parking 
and Traffic. In addition, the Fire Department, Public Health, 
and Municipal Railway fees as collected for street fairs may 
not represent full cost reimbursement, and additional 
revenue might be generated if the fee schedules were 
adjusted to compensate departments entirely for their costs 
for street closings. 

13. In June, 1992, legislation was introduced which would 
have permitted 100 percent cost recovery for all street 
closures for the Department of Parking and Traffic and the 
Police Department (File 97-92-30). Such cost recoveries were 
anticipated to generate $300,000 in revenue for the Police 
Department alone. This legislation was continued and has 
not been recalendared. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 6 - File 51-92-2 

The proposed item transmits the claims of various City employees for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 

Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The Controller 
recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted to the 
Controller, and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the 
Controller that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount 
certified for payment is fair and reasonable. 

Comments 

1. The proposed claims are for the period April, May and June, 1992. 

2. The Controller's Office intends to request that this item be continued to 
the Finance Committee meeting on October 14, 1992, in order to allow the 
Department additional time to review these City employee claims. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 7 - File 47-92-5.1 

Departments: Parking Authority 

Real Estate 

Item: Resolution to reject the bid of B.L. Horn Corporation in 

response for bids for management of the Polk-Bush Garage 
and to award the bid to City Parking, the lowest, responsive 
and reasonable bidder. 

Description: The Polk-Bush Garage is a new City-owned parking facility 

located at the southeast corner of Bush and Polk Streets. The 
garage is scheduled to be completed by November of 1992. The 
garage has an estimated construction cost of $4,125,000 and is 
being paid for by previously appropriated Off-Street Parking 
Funds. The new garage will include an annex that is located 
on Bush Street. The annex is currently a metered parking 
facility which the City leases from the San Francisco Unified 
School District. The Polk-Bush Garage has 132 parking 
spaces and is projected to serve approximately 12,500 vehicles 
per month. The annex will be converted from the existing 38- 
space metered parking facility to a 30-space monthly parking 
facility. 

In August, the Board of Supervisors previously approved an 
ordinance (File 47-92-5) to authorize a management 
agreement for operation of the Polk-Bush Garage and annex. 
Under a management agreement, after deduction of parking 
tax and payment of rent on the annex property, the garage 
operator would receive a monthly management fee based on 
the monthly cost to operate the garage paid from the gross 
parking revenues. The garage operator would also be 
reimbursed for the costs of property insurance and the 
possessory interest tax. The balance of revenues after 
payment of the management fee and other expenses would 
accrue to the City's Off-Street Parking Fund. The 
management agreement provides that the monthly 
management fee would be adjusted annually according to the 
Consumer Price Index. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 1 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Five bids were received on September 14, 1992, as follows: 

Monthly 
Management Fee 

B.L. Horn Corporation $200 

City Parking 13,079 

American Vantage 15,900 

Car Park 16,800 

City Park 17,137 

According to the Real Estate Department, B.L. Horn 
Corporation has reported that its bid was based on a 
misunderstanding of the Invitation for Bids and its bid is not 
realistic. B. L. Horn has requested that its bid be withdrawn. 
The Director of the Parking Authority and the Director of 
Property have determined that the low bid from B. L. Horn 
Corporation is not responsive or reasonable. Therefore, the 
management agreement for operation of the Polk-Bush 
Garage should be awarded to the second lowest, responsive 
and reasonable bidder, City Parking. 

Comments: 1. The Parking and Traffic Commission approved the 

management agreement with City Parking on September 15, 
1992. 

2. The Parking Authority estimates that the Polk-Bush 
Garage and annex will initially generate gross annual 
revenues of approximately $250,000 and $25,000 respectively, 
for a total projected gross revenue of $275,000 annually. The 
Parking Authority estimates that $55,000 of the $275,000 
would be deducted for parking tax, based on a 25 percent 
parking tax, leaving a balance of $220,000. Of the remaining 
$220,000, the Parking Authority estimates that $12,000 would 
be paid to the Unified School District for rental of the annex 
property, the management fee of $156,948 ($13,079 monthly) 
would be paid to City Parking, and a balance of $57,052 less 
the operator's expenses for property insurance and 
possessory interest tax would accrue to the City's Off-Street 
Parking Fund. Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Director of the Parking 
Authority, states that estimates of the costs of property 
insurance and possessory interest tax have not been made 
because this is the first time that a management agreement 
has been used and because there are no other garages with 
comparable characteristics to the Polk-Bush Garage that can 
be used as a basis for these estimates. In Mr. Hagerty's 
opinion, these costs for property insurance and possessory 
interest tax will not exceed the $57,052 net income. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 L 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 8 - File 64-92-23 



Departments: 
Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor. 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase 
Over 1991-92: 

Term of Lease: 

Source of Funds: 

Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Real Estate 

Police, Narcotics Bureau 

Resolution authorizing a three year lease to renew an 
agreement previously authorized as a license for the use of 
real property. 

Building 128, Hunters Point Annex 

Storage of automobiles confiscated by the Police Department 
during drug raids. 

U.S. Department of the Navy 



Approximately 5,000 sq. ft. @ $0.22 per sq. ft. = $1,100 
$13,200 

10 percent increase 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1995 (three years) 

Narcotics Forfeiture and Asset Seizure Fund 

1. According to the Department of Real Estate, when the 
monthly rent was $1,000 and the agreement was renewed 
annually the agreement could be in the form of a license, but 
now that the rent payments exceed $1,000 monthly, a formal 
lease agreement is required. 

2 According to the terms of the proposed lease, continuation 
of the proposed lease beyond the current fiscal year (1992-93) 
through fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 would be subject to 
appropriation of funding for lease payments in the Police 
Department's 1993-94 and 1994-95 budgets. 

3. The proposed lease would be retroactive to July 1, 1992. 
According to the Real Estate Department, additional time 
was required to initiate and process lease documents, when, 
subsequent to July 1, 1992, the Navy informed the Real Estate 
Department that the monthly rent would be more than $1,000. 

Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the proposed 
lease retroactive to July 1, 1992, and approve the proposed 
resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



65 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 9 - File 198-92-2 

Department: Municipal Court 

Item: Resolution to establish a fee to cover the administrative and 

clerical costs of processing installment accounts for the 
payment of fines imposed by the Municipal Court in criminal 
and traffic cases pursuant to Penal Code Section 1205(d). 

Description: California Penal Code Section 1205, Subsection (d) allows the 

City to collect a fee to recover the administrative and clerical 
costs of processing fines imposed by the Courts that are being 
paid on an installment basis. According to the Penal Code 
the fee is to be equal to the actual administrative and clerical 
costs up to a maximum of $30. 

The Municipal Court estimates that the administrative and 
clerical costs of processing installment fine accounts is $30 
for each criminal case installment account and $31 for each 
traffic case installment account. Therefore, the Municipal 
Court proposes establishing a $30 fee in accordance with 
California Penal Code Section 1205, Subsection (d) to recover 
the costs of processing installment accounts. 

Comments: 1. The Municipal Court indicates that approximately 11,000 

new traffic fine installment accounts and approximately 
2,000 new criminal fine installment accounts are created 
each year. The average traffic fine assessed is approximately 
$600 and the average criminal fine assessed is approximately 
$750. Based on a total of approximately 13,000 new 
installment accounts each year (11,000 traffic fine accounts 
and 2,000 criminal fine accounts), the proposed new fee 
would generate approximately $390,000 in new revenue for 
the General Fund annually. 

2. The Budget Analyst's recommendations for revisions to the 
1992-93 budget for the Municipal Court stated, based on 
preliminary figures provided by the Municipal Court, that 
establishing a $30 installment fee would result in $315,000 in 
annual revenues and $210,000 for the last eight months of 
Fiscal Year 1992-93. The revised figures provided by the 
Municipal Court of 13,000 installment accounts means that 
the estimate of annual revenues is $75,000 higher than 
originally estimated ($390,000 as opposed to $315,000). For the 
last eight months of Fiscal Year 1992-93, the estimate of 
revenues is $50,000 higher ($260,000 as opposed to $210,000). 

Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 10 - File 65-92-13 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 



No.ofSq.Ftand 
Rent per Month: 



Annual Rent: 
Term of Lease: 
Description: 



Recreation and Park Department 

The proposed ordinance would approve a lease between the 
Recreation and Park Department with Theatre Bay Area 
(TBA) to operate a discount ticket booth selling theatre tickets 
at Union Square Garage. 

The ticket booth is located in the unused Stockton Street 
entrance to the Union Square Garage. 



The proposed monthly rent is $105 for 188 square feet or 
approximately $0.56 per square foot or $6.72 per year. 

$1,260 plus five percent of net revenues over $160,000. 

Five years with one five year option. 

The ticket booth at Union Square has been operated since 1982 
by Performing Arts Services, which has done business under 
the name of STBS. STBS has had no lease with the Recreation 
and Park Department but has operated under a month to 
month revocable permit. STBS is paying an annual rental of 
$1,250 per year or approximately $104 per month. 

The services offered by STBS and to be offered by TBA include 
selling day-of-the-performance theater tickets at half price to 
the public on a first come, first served basis; selling advance 
tickets for small non-profit theater companies (with a budget 
under $500,000); and selling full priced tickets as a BASS 
ticket outlet. STBS provides a service to both the theater 
community by selling otherwise unsold tickets and to the 
public by selling tickets at half price. 

According to the Recreation and Park Department, STBS has 
always been a marginal operation and filed for bankruptcy on 
January 24, 1991. While STBS is still currently operating the 
ticket booth, both STBS and the Recreation and Park 
Department have been seeking another operator for the ticket 
booth. Because the Recreation and Park Department has not 
been able to rent space in Union Square to for-profit operators 
(see Comment 2 below), a non-profit operator for the ticket 
booth was sought. Because STBS had previously initiated 
discussions with TBA and because the Recreation and Park 
Department determined that TBA was a reputable 
organization, the Recreation and Park Department has 
proposed that the Union Square space occupied by STBS be 
leased to TBA. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

TBA was founded in 1975 by a group of theater owners 
interested in sharing information and resources and is the 
largest theater service organization in North America. The 
proposed lease represents the first time TBA has attempted to 
operate a ticket booth operation. 

In addition to the services noted above, TBA would provide 
other benefits to the Recreation and Park Department. TBA 
would provide discount memberships to 50 individual 
members of the Recreation and Park Department's Young 
People's Teen Musical Theater as well giving free 
membership to the Theater as an organization. Additionally, 
TBA has agreed to stock, sell, and distribute information and 
tickets to Recreation and Park Department attractions or 
activities at no cost. 

Comments: 1. TBA would pay $1,260 in annual rent which is $10 higher 

than the annual rent of $1,250 that STBS is currently paying. 
According to Ms. Robin Burgstahler of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the $160,000 base level revenues, above 
which TBA would pay five percent of their net revenues, 
represent the maximum annual revenues that STBS was 
able to achieve. Ms. Burgstahler adds that the Recreation and 
Park Department is hopeful that TBA will be able to manage 
the ticket sale concession in a more successful manner and 
that revenues will increase and result in the City receiving 
higher rent for the property (since the City would receive five 
percent of net revenues). Additionally, the five year lease 
option, if exercised, would provide for higher negotiated 
payments of between three and ten percent of gross revenues. 

2. Ms. Burgstahler reports that the Recreation and Park 
Department has previously sought to seek commercial 
tenants who would pay market rates for another space at 
Union Square but withdrew its proposal because of strong 
opposition from downtown merchants. 

3. Estimates prepared by the Real Estate Department for the 
Recreation and Park Department indicate that market rate 
rental rates for Union Square would be $7.50 per square foot 
per month (or $90 per square foot per year) plus six percent of 
gross revenues. Based on an estimate of $160,000 in annual 
gross revenues, the annual payment to the City would be 
$26,520 ($16,920 in rental payments and $9,600 based on gross 
revenues). This is $25,260 more than the $1,260 proposed 
lease with TBA. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Recommendation: Because the proposed lease with TBA represents less than 
the fair market value for the Recreation and Park 
Department space at Union Square, approval of the proposed 
lease is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Items 11 and 12 - Files 97-92-56 and 115-92-11 

Department City Planning 

Items: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code 

by amending Section 31.46A, concerning fees for zoning, 
public information, and construction services related to 
development projects and permit processing (File 97-92-56). 

Ordinance amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal 
Code (City Planning Code) by adding new Section 374 and 
renumbering Section 374 of Article 3. 5 A, to impose new fees 
for zoning and public information, construction services, and 
compliance activities related to development projects and 
permit processing (File 115-92-11). 

Purpose: The Department of City Planning provides certain planning 

services to the public for which cost recovery is made in order 
to reduce dependence on the General Fund for those 
planning services and to provide levels of service that would 
not be possible under General Fund support levels. 
Currently, the Department recovers approximately 70 
percent of its costs for development projects and permit 
processing services and is requesting to increase its cost 
recovery for those services so that the level of planning 
services may be maintained, and in some cases enhanced, in 
this period of decreased General Fund support. These fees 
relate to the review and approval processes performed by the 
Implementation Division of the Department of City Planning, 
including environmental reviews (File 97-92-56) and the 
review of planning authorizations and building permits (File 
115-92-11). 

Description: The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-56) would amend Section 

31.46A, "Basic Fees," of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, by introducing a new fee which would require an 
applicant for an "initial evaluation of a development project" 
under the environmental review provisions of the 
Administrative Code to pay, at the time of filing the 
application, an additional fee of $125 in order to compensate 
the Department of City Planning for zoning and public 
information, and construction services, related to 
development projects and permit processing. Development 
projects are defined as projects that alter the use of land or 
structures thereon and may range in construction value 
from less than $10,000 to more than $100,000,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



The proposed ordinance (File 115-92-11) would amend 
Article 3.5A, "Fees," of the City Planning Code by replacing 
Section 374, which is an administrative section titled 
"Period Article Is Operative," with a new Section 374. The 
new Section 374 would authorize the Department of City 
Planning to collect, at the time an applicant files an 
application for a planning authorization of the type listed 
below, an additional $125 in order to compensate the 
Department for zoning and public information, 
construction services, and compliance activities related to 
development projects and permit processing. The planning 
authorizations or services for which the additional $125 
would be imposed are as follows: 



Planning 


Planning 


Authorization 


Code 


or Service 


Section 


Conditional Use 


351 


Establish, Abolish, or Modify 




a Setback Line 


351 


Reclassify Property 


351 


Variance 


351 


Coastal Zone Permit 


351 


Review of Building Permit Applications 


352 


Review of Building Demolition Applications 353 


Institutional Master Plans 


356 



The Department of City Planning estimates that the proposed 
fee increases would increase Departmental revenues on an 
annual basis by $748,375, and by approximately $460,000 for 
the balance of FY 1992-93, assuming implementation of the 
new fee by November 21, 1992. The FY 1992-93 increment of 
$460,000 would offset a $460,000 requirement to reduce the 
General Fund support in the Department's budget. The 
$460,000 in revenues have been included in the Mayor's 
revised FY 1992-93 budget as a part of the City's response to 
the State's reduced level of support to the City. 

The Department's revenue estimates from the proposed 
additional $125 fee are based on the following application 
workload estimates for FY 1992-93, which are identical to the 
Department's actual workloads for FY 1991-92: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Total 



Application 


FY 1992-93 


Additional 


Type 


Workload 


Revenues 


Initial Evaluation 


95 


$11,875 


(Environmental) 






Conditional Uses 


116 


14,500 


Setback Lines/ 






Reclassifications 


10 


1,250 


Variances 


181 


22,625 


Coastal Zone Permit 


2 


250 


Building Permits 


5,439 


679,875 


Building Demolitions 


143 


17,875 


Institutional Master Plan 


1 


125 



5,987 



$748,375 



Actual and estimated revenues and costs of the Department's 
Implementation Division operations for FY 1991-92 and FY 
1992-93 are summarized as follows. 





Comparison of Revenues 
With Expenditures 






FY 1991-92 

Actuals Based 

on Existing fees 


FY 1992-93 

FY 1992-93 

Current 

Budget 


FY 1992-93 

Adjusted Budget 

with Proposed 

Additional Fee 


Implementation 
Division Costs 


$3,681,094 


$4,321,022 


$4,526,862 


Fee Revenues 


2.500.755 


3.159.143 


3.619.143 


Excess of Costs 
over Revenues 


$1,180,339 


$1,161,879 


$907,719 


Percent Cost 
Recovery 


67.9 


73.1 


79.9 



As the preceding table shows, the currently budgeted 
percentage of cost recovery from fee revenues for the 
Implementation Division for FY 1992-93 is 73.1 percent. Cost 
recovery figures with an offsetting $460,000 fee increase 
would be 79.9 percent. 

In a memorandum to the Mayor's Office, dated September 16, 
1992, the Director of Planning reported that an expenditure 
reduction of $490,000 (which was the budget reduction 
originally contemplated for the Department instead of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



current figure of $460,000) for the Department of City 
Planning would result in either immediately implementing a 
35-hour work week for all Departmental staff or to eliminate 
15 staff positions effective January 1, 1993. As reported by the 
Director of Planning, the major effects of such a staff 
reduction would be as follows: 

• Immediate elimination of Discretionary Review staffing; 

• Elimination of non-permit-related Violation Abatement 
processing; 

• Elimination of Landmarks and Historic Districts work; 

• Elimination of a Planning Department presence in the 
Construction Services Center; 

• Elimination of Public Information Services at the Zoning 
Information Counter. 



Comments: 1. The Department of City Planning was granted fee 

increases of approximately 33.1 percent and granted various 
additional surcharges on fees effective July 1, 1991. Those fee 
increases and surcharges were to enable the Department to 
acquire the staff positions and computer equipment for 
expediting the permit process, improving other planning 
services, and financing new computer system and system 
maintenance costs. The existing Section 374 of the Planning 
Code, which would become Section 375 under the proposed 
legislation, requires that the Planning Commission conduct 
a public hearing at the end of FY 1992-93 to review whether 
the level of services provided by the Department of City 
Planning are as they were contemplated under the fee 
increases that became effective July 1, 1991. The Planning 
Commission will, at that time, determine whether to initiate 
an ordinance to extend or to otherwise modify the fees related 
to the Department's application processes that were 
contained in that previously approved fee legislation. The 
Planning Commission is required to provide a report on the 
results of the public hearing with recommendations on its 
findings to the Board of Supervisors, within one month of the 
date of the public hearing. 

2. Mr. Alec Bash of the Department of City Planning reports 
that currently, the Department is meeting some of the 
performance targets specified with the previous fee 
increases, and particularly so in permit processing. Mr. 
Bash states that some performance targets, such as 
environmental review targets for categorical exemptions and 
negative declarations, are not being met due to staff 
shortages that have occurred since the subject fee increases 
were implemented. Mr. Bash further states that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Department's services have increased considerably through 
its efforts to computerize its operations. Those 
computerization achievements are supported by two fee 
surcharges enacted as a part of the fee increase legislation 
made effective with the beginning of FY 1991-92. 

3. Mr. Bash reports that the service reductions that will 
occur in the absence of the proposed additional fees, and 
previously discussed in this report, will result in the 
Department achieving service levels well short of those 
contemplated in the FY 1991-92 fee increase legislation. 

4. The proposed $125 additional flat fee on the project types 
previously enumerated is regressive in nature in that the fee 
constitutes a higher percentage of the base fee for lower cost 
projects. However, Mr. Bash reports that the $125 additional 
fee is intended to correct a disproportionately small fee for 
projects with low construction costs. According to Mr. Bash, 
a conditional use application with an estimated construction 
cost of under $10,000 currently has a fee of $325. Mr. Bash 
reports that a $325 fee would cover approximately six hours of 
staff time, based on an average hourly rate of $54, while the 
minimum number of hours for processing such an 
application is approximately 20 hours, for a Department cost 
of approximately $1,080. Thus, even with the increased fee of 
$125 these small projects would not fully recover their cost. 
Mr. Bash further states that the minimum staff time 
required to process a negative declaration (an environmental 
review process) for projects of $10,000 or less is at least triple 
the $300 fee collected for such projects. 

5. A report titled "Management Audit of the City's Permit 
Processing System," conducted by the Budget Analyst and 
issued in October of 1989 contains the following 
recommendations that relate to the proposed legislation: 

- Adjust existing fees to fully recover the costs of the 
Implementation Division. 

6. As previously stated, the proposed legislation (File 115-92- 
11) provides that, upon enactment, the contents of the 
proposed legislation would replace the existing Section 374 of 
Article 3.5A of the Planning Code. However, the latest 
revision to Article 3.5A of the Planning Code contains no 
Section 374. The existing legislation referred to in the 
proposed legislation actually is contained in Section 371 of 
Article 3.5A. Therefore, the reference to Section 374 of Article 
3.5A should be changed to read Section 371 of Article 3.5A., 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

and the reference to Section 375 of Article 3.5A should be 
changed to read Section 372. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the references on page one, lines 3, 13, 14, 16, and 
24 to read Section 371 instead of Section 374 and amend the 
reference on page one, line 24, to read Section 372 instead of 
Section 375 (File 115-92-11). 

2. Based on the prior policy decision of the Finance 
Committee and in order to keep the budget in balance, 
approve the proposed ordinances, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 13 - File 173-92-3 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Ordinance approving a five year Marine Terminal Use 
Agreement with National Snipping Corporation of the 
Philippines for use of the North Container Terminal (Pier 
80). 

The proposed ordinance would approve a new five year 
agreement between the Port and the National Shipping 
Corporation of the Philippines (NSCP) for dockage and 
wharfage at Pier 80. The current 5-year contract between 
NSCP and the Port, which took effect in 1987, is scheduled 
to expire November 27, 1992. The new agreement would 
take effect following approval by the Port Commission, the 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the Federal 
Maritime Commission. The agreement has already been 
approved by the Port Commission, and the Federal 
Maritime Commission is expected to approve the agreement 
prior to action by the Board of Supervisors. 

The Port estimates that total revenue over the five year 
term of the proposed agreement will be approximately $1.8 
million. 

1. Mr. Roger Peters, Director of Cargo Services for the Port, 
reports that the proposed agreement is essentially identical 
to the Port's standard agreement for shipping companies of 
NSCP's size and capacity. Revenues to the Port under the 
proposed agreement would consist of fees for Dockage, 
Wharfage for Full Containers, and Wharfage for Breakbulk 
Cargo. 

According to Mr. Peters, dockage is a fixed rate for a ship 
docking at the Port for a 24-hour period. Wharfage is 
assessed according to the volume of cargo handled through 
the Port facilities. The volume of containerized cargo is 
expressed as "Twenty-foot Equivalent Units", or TEUs. 
The volume of non-containerized ("breakbulk") cargo is 
expressed in tons. 

2. Mr. Peters states that NSCP is expected to ship 
approximately 6,000 containerized TEUs and 
approximately 4,854 tons of breakbulk cargo through the 
Port each year over the 5 year term of the agreement. 

Under the proposed agreement's sliding scale for wharfage 
fees for containerized cargo, and the fixed rates for 
breakbulk cargo and dockage fees, the Port expects to 
receive the following estimated annual revenue, based on 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



dockage, 6,000 containerized TEUs, and 4,854 tons of 
breakbulk cargo shipped annually by NSCP: 

WHARFAGE FEES (Containerized Cargo) Annual 

Volume of TEUs No. of TEUs RatenerTEU Revenue 

1 through 1,500 1,500 $60 $90,000 

1,501 through 2,500 1,000 57 57,000 

2,501 through 4,000 1,500 52 78,000 

4,001 through 5,000 1,000 48 48,000 

5,001 through 11,000 1.000 42 42.000 

Total 6,000 $315,000 

WHARFAGE FEES (Breakbulk Cargo) 

$3.09/ton x 4,854 tons 15,000 

DOCKAGE 30.000 

Total Annual Revenue $360,000 

Projected Revenue Over 5 Years $1,800,000 

3. Mr. Peters indicates that the 5-year estimated revenue of 
$1.8 million is based on estimated annual cargo volume of 
6,000 TEUs and 4,854 tons of breakbulk cargo each year, 
based on the rate schedule presented above. If the volume 
increases in any year, revenues would increase. The rates 
would not increase for the first three years of the contract. 
Rates for the final two years of the contract would be 
renegotiated based on the rate structure then in effect for 
other Marine Terminal Agreements at the Port. 

4. Mr. Peters reports that the NSCP remitted the following 
gross revenues for wharfage and dockage to the Port under 
the existing 5-year contract: 

TEUs Dockage Wharfage Total 



1987-88 


6,830 


$16,000 


$362,000 


$378,000 


1988-89 


7,107 


20,000 


398,000 


418,000 


1989-90 


7,054 


21,000 


395,000 


416,000 


1990-91 


8,268 


18,000 


463,000 


481,000 


1991-92 


7.143 


22.000 


400.000 


422.000 


Total 


36,402 


$97,000 


$2,018,000 


$2,115,000 



As shown above, total revenue for the past five years was 
$2,115,000, which is $315,000 more than the $1.8 million in 
projected revenues under the proposed new agreement. 
However, the 36,402 TEUs shipped in the previous five 
years is 6,402 TEUs greater than the 30,000 TEUs (6,000 
TEUs annually) upon which the Port's $1.8 million 5-year 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



revenue estimate is based. If the NSCP ships 6,402 
additional TEUs of cargo under the proposed new 
agreement, at the proposed new applicable rate of $42 per 
TEU, total revenue under the proposed new agreement 
would increase by $268,884 to $2,068,884, which would be 
$46,116 less than the total revenues received over the past 
five years under the existing agreement. 

Mr. Peters states that the difference in revenues under the 
existing and proposed agreements is attributable to the 
Port's transition to a graduated rate schedule under the 
proposed new agreement, which charges higher fees than at 
present for low volumes of cargo, and lower rates as the 
volume increases. The rate under the existing agreement 
was $56 for each TEU through June 1988, and $58 per TEU 
between July 1988 and July 1992. Mr. Peters states that 
the graduated rate schedule will provide an incentive for 
shipping companies to move more cargo through the Port, 
and will enhance the Port's competitiveness with the Port of 
Oakland, which is expanding its capacity. 

5. The proposed agreement includes two financial 
incentives for the NSCP to enter into the 5 year agreement 
with the Port. First, the rate for dockage is only 60 percent 
of the tariff which applies to ships docking at the Port 
which do not have agreements with the Port, according to 
Mr. Peters. Based on information provided by Mr. Peters, 
the Budget Analyst estimates that this discount is valued at 
approximately $20,000 annually, or $100,000 over the 5 
year term of the proposed agreement. 

In addition, the proposed agreement provides that the Port 
would recalculate the fees paid by NSCP for the period 
January 1, 1992 through the commencement date of the 
new agreement, based on a schedule contained in the 
proposed agreement. Mr. Peters indicates that the 
recalculation would not change the amount of the NSCP's 
payment for the period January 1, 1992 through June 30, 
1992, since the original and recalculated rates are 
equivalent. For the period July 1, 1992 through October 31, 
1992, the rate recalculation would result in a $4,000 
reimbursement to NSCP for fees paid over that period. 

Taken together, these two financial incentives are valued at 
approximately $104,000 over the 5-year term of the 
agreement. Mr. Peters states that the discounts offered to 
NSCP were necessitated by the effects of competition with 
the Oakland Port, and are of an appropriate size to ensure 
the Port's competitiveness with Oakland. Mr. Peters 
reports that similar discounts are provided to other 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



shipping companies similar to the NSCP in size and 
capacity. 

6. The proposed agreement includes an acknowledgment by 
NSCP that the agreement may create "a possessory interest 
subject to taxation." Mr. Peters states that this clause 
reflects that although the Port is not required to pay 
property tax to the City and County of San Francisco, 
private firms utilizing Port facilities may be liable for such 
property taxes. Mr. Peters states that this is a legal 
principle which applies equally to all shipping companies 
utilizing Port facilities. 

Mr. Peters states that at the present time, the shipping 
companies which contract with the Port do not pay property 
taxes to the City. However, the Metropolitan California 
Stevedore Company, which manages facility operations for 
the Port, is assessed possessory interest property taxes 
based on its commercial use of the facilities. Mr. Peters 
states that, because of the City's current fiscal difficulties, 
the Port is currently engaged in discussions with the 
Assessor's Office to determine whether shipping companies 
using Port facilities can be assessed possessory interest 
property taxes. 

7. The proposed agreement grants the Port's consent to the 
NSCP to contest the amount or validity of any tax or 
assessment created by a "possessory interest," should the 
NSCP choose to do so. Mr. Peters states that this language 
was recommended by the City Attorney, and that a 
shipping company's liability for property taxes would be a 
judicial determination unaffected by the grant of the Port's 
consent to NSCP to contest the assessment of such taxes. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 14 



File 28-92-11 






Department Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution approving a declaration of an emergency, 

pertaining to environmental services at Road 18 and Road 9, 
at San Francisco Airport. 

Amount: $150,000 

Source of Funds: Airport Capital Improvement Funds 



Description: 



Comment: 



The Airport reports that the main telephone cables serving 
all of the terminals and the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) Control Tower are failing due to gasoline seeping into 
the telephone duct and manhole. The Airports Commission 
formally declared the damage to the cables and the gasoline 
seepage an emergency on July 29, 1992. The Airport advises 
that the cables must be replaced to avoid disruption of 
telephone service and that environmental clean up work 
must be performed to correct the seepage of gasoline into the 
affected area in order to protect the telephone technicians 
from gasoline contamination. 

In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
the Airport reports that it used expedited contract procedures 
to acquire Sierra Environmental Services to perform the 
necessary corrective work. The $150,000 is designated for 
these contract services. Sierra Environmental Services is 
neither an MBE or WBE firm. The Airport advises that 
Sierra Environmental Services began the corrective work on 
July 29, 1992 and the work is anticipated to be completed by 
November 1, 1992. According to the Airport, Pacific Bell will 
perform the repair work on the telephone cables. As of the 
writing of this report, the Airport reports that Pacific Bell 
was unable to provide an estimate of the cost for this repair 
work. 

Mr. Reuben Halili of the Airport reports that the Airport is in 
the process of making a determination as to which airline 
tenant is responsible for the gasoline seepage. Mr. Halili 
advises that when it is determined which airline tenant is 
responsible for the gasoline seepage, the responsible airline 
would be required to pay for the cost of the repair work on the 
telephone cables. Additionally, according to Mr. Halili, the 
responsible airline would also be required to reimburse the 
Airport for the contract services provided by Sierra 
Environmental Services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Item 15 



File 82-92-8 



Departments: Real Estate Department 

Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 53 additional noise 

easements in the City of South San Francisco in their Phase 
VI Program. 

Description: The San Francisco International Airport's Noise Easement 

Acquisition Program consists of insulating private 
residences and schools in the City of South San Francisco 
and other cities that are located near the San Francisco 
Airport. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
which authorized the acquisition of noise easements for 200 
additional homes comprising the City of South San 
Francisco's Phase VI Program (File 82-92-1). The proposed 
legislation would authorize an additional 53 noise easements 
to be included in the Phase VI Program, bringing the total 
number of easements to 253. The Real Estate Department 
advises that the $500,000 previously appropriated for the above 
noted 200 noise easements is sufficient to acquire the 
proposed additional 53 noise easements. 

Once purchased, the noise easements would remain in effect 
for 20 years. As consideration for the grant of noise 
easements, the City would pay 20 percent, or $113,174 of the 
total construction cost and title insurance fees to insulate the 
53 residences. In addition, the City of South San Francisco 
would pay the remaining 80 percent, or $452,696, of the total 
construction costs and title insurance fees of $565,870, with 
funding obtained from Federal grant funds. 

Comments: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the acquisition of 

the 53 additional noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco would satisfy the State-mandated noise mitigation 
requirements. The Board of Supervisors has previously 
approved seven different resolutions to acquire a combined 
total of 480 noise easements in the City of South San 
Francisco. If the proposed resolution is approved, the City 
would have authorized a total of 533 noise easements in the 
City of South San Francisco. 

2. The City Attorney's Office reports that the purchase of 
these noise easements enables the City to comply with State 
legal requirements, and eliminates any costs to defend 
against noise-related small claims lawsuits filed by San 
Mateo County residents. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

Item 16 -File 170-92-11 

Department: Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution approving and authorizing the issuance of not to 

exceed $305 million principal amount of San Francisco 
International Airport Second Series Refunding Revenue 
Bonds in up to three separate issues, and establishing a 
maximum interest rate therefor. 

Amount: Not to exceed $305 million 

Description: The Airports Commission is requesting authorization to 

refund revenue bonds Second Series, Series B, D and E, in an 
amount not to exceed $305 million. 

These bonds are currently described as follows: 







Date 


Date of 


Interest 


Issue 


Amount 


Issued 


Maturity 


Rate 


B 


$90 m 


1978 


2008 


6.4% 


D 


108 m 


1983 


2013 


9.3% 


E 


92.9 m 


1990 


2020 


7.5% 



Under the proposed refunding, the bonds would be reissued 
at lower interest rates, estimated as follows: 



Amount of Reissue 

(Equals Outstanding 

Issue Amount) 

B $76.8 m 

D 100.4 m 

E 90.8 m 



Anticipated 


Anticipated 




Difference 


Date 


New Date of 


Interest 


from Present 


of Reissue 


Maturity 


Eat£ 


Interest Rate 


unknown 


2008 


6.3% 


.1%* 


10/27/92 


2020 


6.3% 


3.0% 


10/27/92 


2020 


6.9%** 


.6% 



Comments: 



* The administrative costs incurred for refunding Series D and E bonds 
would not increase if Series B bonds were also included in the refunding 
package. Therefore, any benefit accruing from refunding Series B bonds, 
however slight, would justify refunding such bonds. 

** Series E bonds are anticipated to be sold at a higher interest rate than 
Series D and E bonds because that series is an alternative minimum tax 
(AMT) bond issue. Typically, interest earned from municipal bonds is 
tax exempt, which increases the value of municipal bonds to the investor. 
AMT bonds are a special category of bonds. Interest earned on AMT 
bonds is subject to taxation. 

1. Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airport reports that the Airport 
expects to save from $24 to $32 million on a net present value 
basis from the proposed refinancing. Such savings would 
increase the salability of the Airport's Master Plan bonds, 
since the Airport's outstanding debt service requirements 
would be less. 



'Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



2. There was a proposal that savings from the proposed bond 
refunding could be used to offset the City's budget shortfall, 
with the intent that the City would assume the costs of 
refunding the bonds, and would also benefit from the savings 
accrued from the refunding. However, Ms. Gittens advises 
that the City cannot legally benefit from Airport bonds, since 
the Airport is supported by airline landing fees and such fees 
must be used for the Airport and not for the City. 

3. To assist the City in closing its present budget deficit, the 
Airport has tentatively agreed to advance $25 million to the 
City's General Fund. Approval of the proposed resolution for 
the bond refunding does not constitute approval of the 
proposed advance of $25 million from the Airport to the City's 
General Fund. The pending advance agreement would be 
subject to separate approval by the Board of Supervisors, and 
is anticipated to be considered no earlier than late October, 
1992, Ms. Gittens reports. 

4. The proposed $25 million advance would be repaid from 
future annual payments to the General Fund of 15 percent of 
Airport concession revenues (estimated at $15 million in 
Fiscal Year 1992-93). This advance is subject to the approval 
of the 19 airlines which are signatory to the 1981 settlement 
agreement between the City and the airlines. These 
concession revenues are paid to the City on a quarterly basis. 
The $25 million advanced to the City this year would be 
deducted from future year concession revenue payments 
from the Airport to the City's General Fund, and would be 
entirely repaid after eight years, Ms. Gittens reports. Ms. 
Gittens advises that the impact of this repayment is expected 
to diminish as concession revenues increase. 

5. The City would be required to pay interest on the $25 
million advance. The rate of this interest would be flexible, 
and equal to either the interest rate of the Treasurer's pooled 
cash investment fund, or of the Airport bonds that are issued, 
whichever is higher. The justification for establishing the 
interest rate in this way is that interest rates based on the 
interest rate of the City's pooled fund, or the amount of any 
Airport bonds that are issued, whichever is higher, would 
guarantee that the $25 million loan would earn as much for 
the Airport as it would if the Airport had not made the 
advance. 

6. The repayment of the advance by the City to the Airport, 
which would be made on a quarterly basis, would begin in 
October, 1993, if funds were transferred to the City on June 
30, 1993, as the Controller has suggested. Based on an 
estimated interest rate of 6.5 percent, for the transfer of $25 
million to meet the City's FY 1992-93 budget shortfall, the 
City's General Fund will be required to repay $1,625,000 in 



85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



interest during FY 1993-94. The quarterly payment 
mechanism would consist of the Airport deducting an 
estimated $406,250 from its estimated $3.75 quarterly 
concession revenue payment to the City's General Fund, so 
that the City would receive an estimated net amount of 
$3,343,750 quarterly in 1993-94. 

7. The $1,625,000 paid to the Airport for the first year would 
consist entirely of interest payments, and would not diminish 
the principal amount owed. The City would begin to make 
payments toward the principal during the second year of the 
loan. 

8. The proposed loan would benefit the City in that it would 
ameliorate the large budget reductions over the balance of 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 that must be made to compensate for the 
loss of State funding. 

9. Regarding the $25 million advance, according to Mr. Ed 
Harrington of the Controller's Office, various drafts of the 
proposed agreement between the Airport and the City for the 
Airport to advance the $25 million to the City's General Fund, 
have included two elements that are not directly connected to 
the advance, as follows: (1) the Board of Supervisors would 
agree to take all appropriate actions to fund the Master Plan 
as approved by the Airports Commission; and (2) the City 
would be required to refrain from any additional request for 
funds from the Airport over the next seven years. 

10. Ms. Gittens reports that the airlines are anticipated to 
agree to the proposed advance of $25 million to the City, since 
such an advance would not incur any costs to the airlines. 

11. While the Budget Analyst believes that this proposed 
resolution for the refunding of Airport revenue bonds is in 
the best interests of the Airport, the Board of Supervisors may 
wish to continue the proposed resolution to the call of the 
Chair until the pending agreement, regarding the $25 
million advance from the Airport to the City's General Fund, 
is submitted to the Board of Supervisors, in order that the 
pending agreement can be reviewed and analyzed by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

12. According to Ms. Gittens, any benefit that would accrue 
from refunding the bonds might be diminished after the 
November, 1992, Presidential election because interest rates 
might increase. Therefore, the Airport requests that the 
Board of Supervisors act immediately so that the bonds may 
be reissued prior to the end of October. Ms. Gittens reports 
that the currently proposed sale date, as noted above, is 
October 27, 1992. The Budget Analyst notes that no one knows 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 

precisely at this time how the election will impact interest 
rates. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution to the call of the Chair. 




cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



87 



X 



SF T>j. ,f *>«(>*"" 3e " 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



H Item 4 -File 188-92-1 




Item: 



Description: 



Revised 



Tublic Library, 'Documents Deipt. 
WFB{: gerry %gtk 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Hetch Hetchy 

Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts 
with Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock 
Irrigation Districts for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy 
hydroelectric power. 

On February 29, 1988, the Board of Supervisors passed 
Ordinance 87-88 (File 446-87-4.1) which approved long term 
agreements between Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (MID & TID) and the City and County of San 
Francisco. The terms of the agreements are from April 1988 
to June 2015 or 27 years and three months. Under these long 
term agreements, the City has agreed to the delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power to the Districts including Class 1 
loads of the MID & TID (power for irrigation pumping and 
District municipal purposes) and Class 3 loads (energy re- 
sold by the MID and TID to its customers). 

Hetch Hetchy is obligated to sell Class 1 power to the MID and 
TID at cost because of the prior water and hydroelectric 
power entitlement identified in the Raker Act. Hetch Hetchy 
sells Class 3 power to the MID and TID at a higher negotiated 
rate and in accordance with subject agreements. Under the 
agreements, Hetch Hetchy must provide hydroelectric power 
demanded by the Districts, above the City's Municipal 
requirements, up to Hetch Hetchy's "Project Dependable 
Capacity" (see Comment 3 below) at contractually specified 
rates, regardless of whether Hetch Hetchy is actually 
generating sufficient power or must purchase additional 
power from PG&E. Power not used for Class 1 purposes is 
deemed to be Class 3 power and is paid for at the higher rate. 

Hetch Hetchy reports that over a 16 month period (March 
1991 through June 1992) revenues derived from the sale of 
hydroelectric power to MID and TID exceeded the cost of 
power purchased from PG&E by $414,841 (see Attachment 1). 
Hetch Hetchy's reported financial data is summarized as 
follows: 



board of supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

-49- 



DOCUMFMTP n^DT. 
OCT 8 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



REVISED 



Month/Year 



Purchase 
of Power 
from PG&E 



Sale of 
Power to 
MID/TIP 



Gain/Loss 



Mar- 1991 $797,366 

Apr-1991 3,027 

(May-1991 through Aug-1991 - 
Sep-1991 941,546 

Oct-1991 709,320 

Nov- 1991 958,476 

Dec-1991 1,061,560 

Jan- 1992 914,205 

Feb-1992 793,616 

(Mar- 1992 through Jun-1992 - 



$660,247 ($137,120) 

3,958 931 

no purchases or sale of purchase power) 

1,232,529 290,983 

782,798 73,478 

1,032,539 74,063 

1,092,571 31,011 

878,436 (35,769) 

910,878 117,263 

no purchases or sale of purchase power) 



Totals 



$6,179,116 $6,593,956 



$414,840 



The City also has a 27 year and three month contract (April 
1988 to June 2015) with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E) for services and power purchase on an "if and as 
needed" basis. The prices under the contract are at rates 
subject to renegotiation periodically. The contract specifies 
that Hetch Hetchy will receive firming services from PG&E 
(fixed charges for capacity reserves whether actually used or 
not by Hetch Hetchy) necessary to support the "Project 
Dependable Capacity". 



Comments: 1. Hetch Hetchy reports that over the last 16 months their 

costs of capacity reserves purchased from PG&E have 
resulted in a savings of $1,349,507 (see Attachment 2, column 
4). Hetch Hetchy's monthly cost to PG&E for a 59,800 kilowatt 
capacity reserve at a wholesale price of $6.25 per kilowatt is 
$373,750 and over a 16 month period that cost totals $5,980,000 
($373,750 x 16). Based on actual use of reserve capacity, 
which if purchased at a higher cost of $16,499 to $17,678 per 
kilowatt from PG&E, would be, according to Hetch Hetchy, 
$7,329,507 during that 16 month period. 

According to Mr. Lawrence Klein, Deputy General Manager 
of Hetch Hetchy, this is a valid comparison since Hetch 
Hetchy is precluded from purchasing capacity reserve 
elsewhere without five years notice to PG&E by the agreement 
with PG&E, and therefore would have had to pay PG&E rates 
in that period. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

-50- 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 7, 1992 REVISED 



The Budget Analyst notes however, that neither the capacity 
reserve costs nor the charges for purchased power would be 
needed if it were not for the provisions of the agreements with 
MID and TID. 

2. The Budget Analyst further notes that the cost of PG&E 
provision of adequate reserve power to meet Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation District demands, up to Hetch Hetchy's 
"Project Dependable Capacity" (see Comment 3 below), would 
be totally avoidable except for the fact that the provisions of 
the 1987 agreements with the Districts require Hetch Hetchy 
to meet such demands and that the demands can only be met 
through the agreement between Hetch Hetchy and PG&E. 

Therefore, if these agreements had not been approved in their 
present form, Hetch Hetchy would not have incurred the 
capacity reserve costs or any incremental costs for purchased 
power to meet the demands of the Districts for Class 3 power. 

If Hetch Hetchy could sell any available hydroelectric power 
at wholesale rates at least equivalent to rates paid by the 
Districts for Class 3 power purchases, then Hetch Hetchy 
would not incur capacity reserve charges of $5,980,000 or net 
revenues, according to Hetch Hetchy's figures, of $414,840, 
for purchased power over a sixteen month period as it has 
since March 1991. The net cost to Hetch Hetchy therefore 
would amount to $5,565,159 ($5,980,000 in capacity reserve 
costs less $414,841 in reported net revenue) based on data 
supplied by Hetch Hetchy. 

Mr. Klein reports however, that without the firm power 
supply provided by the PG&E agreement, the City would not 
have realized equivalent revenue, from either MID, TID or 
any other long term customer, as has been received from the 
Districts for Class 3 power. 

3. The provisions of the current long term agreements 
between the City and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts include: 

• The full cost of the support charge for PG&E firming 
services, less $700,000 paid by the Districts as part of their 
Class 1 rates, must be paid by Hetch Hetchy. Such 
services are in effect a guarantee by PG&E to provide 
sufficient capacity reserves to support the level of power 
and energy to be provided by Hetch Hetchy. 



board of supervisors 
Budget analyst 

-51- 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 7, 1992 REVISED 



• The City agrees to meet priorities for delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power, as follows: 

- City municipal loads; 

- Class 1 loads of the Districts per requirement of 

Raker Act; 

- Class 3 power to the Districts (energy resold by the 

Districts to its customers); 

• Excess energy, over and above Hetch Hetchy's "Project 
Dependable Capacity" is sold to Airport Tenants and 
Riverbank Army Munitions Plant (operated by Norris 
Industries). 

• The Districts will have the right to purchase either one 
half of all excess energy or all such energy above the 
requirements of Airport Tenants. 

• The Districts have rights to purchase any increase in 
future Hetch Hetchy "Project Dependable Capacity" (an 
agreed minimum generation capacity Hetch Hetchy is 
able to produce, even in a dry year, approximately 260,000 
kilowatts). 

• The City's rights to withdraw firm capacity from the 
Districts, for the City's municipal purposes, after 
providing five years advance notice. 

4. According to Mr. Lawrence Klein of Hetch Hetchy, all 
charges for hydroelectric energy to the Districts, as identified 
in Attachment 1, except for March 1991, are for Class 3 
energy loads. For March 1991, the total 23,894,700 Kw hours 
sold to MID and TID for $660,247 are divided between 
15,425,000 Kw hours for Class 1 power ($208,884) and 8,469,700 
Kw hours for Class 3 power ($451,363). 

5. Mr. Klein also advises that the City, under its contract 
with PG&E, presently has not identified an alternative source 
to its purchase of capacity reserve other than PG&E. 
However, Mr. Klein states that the City would be required to 
give PG&E notice that the City has selected an alternative to 
its current purchase of energy capacity reserve from PG&E. 

Mr. Klein further advises that the City has recently become a 
member of the Western Systems Power Pool (WSPP) which 
would permit the City to purchase supplemental energy from 
a WSPP member at a lower rate than the rate charged by 
PG&E. This has resulted in $688,000 in savings, as opposed to 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

-52- 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 7, 1992 REVISED 



purchases from PG&E supplemental energy, since July 1, 
1992. 

6. The Budget Analyst further notes that the subject of this 
hearing requested by the Finance Committee is to consider 
the "fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts". However, the data 
provided by Hetch Hetchy only covers the period of March, 
1991 through June, 1992. 

The Budget Analyst has therefore requested the following 
data on a monthly basis for the full term of the current 
agreements: 

• The amount, in kilowatt hours, of Class 1 power and 
payments for such power consumed by both the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The amount, in kilowatt hours, of Class 3 power and 
payments to Hetch Hetchy for such power consumed by 
both the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The full monthly costs for capacity reserve payments to 
PG&E; 

• The full cost and amount of power purchased from 
PG&E to meet the power consumption demands of the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; 

• The incremental payments made by the Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation Districts for the power purchased 
from PG&E; and 

• Any available market data that would provide reliable 
estimates of alternative revenues that could be realized 
by Hetch Hetchy if they were not bound by these 
agreements. 

7. The Budget Analyst has been informed that the Finance 
Committee has received a request to continue this hearing 
one week. 



Recommendation: Continue this item one week. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

-53- 



Attachment 1 



























Hetch Hctchy Water & Power 




Comparison of Costs of Power Purchased from PG&E for resale to (he Districts and the revenue derived from that sale 




_L 


1 I 


1 1 ! 




— 




PC&E Billings 


PG&L Billings 


District Billings 






1 


1 m 1 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


Month 


What SF paid 
PG&E (Total) 




What SF paid PG&E for power to be sold 
to (he Districts 


Districts. Total CIass-3 Firm 
Energy 


Districts Claw 1 Power 
(purchased from PG&E) 


What SF charged 

Turlock & Modesto 

for Power 

purchased from 

PGAE 


San Francisco' 

net 

benifjtf(cost) 




kW-Hra 


S/kW-Hr 


$'» 


kW-Hrs 


$'s 


































Mar-91 


$2,453,968 


• 


23.894.700 


$0.03337 


$797,366 


8.469,700 


$451,363 


15.425.000 


$208,884 


$660,247 


($137,120 


Apr-91 


$1,966,670 


97.74T 


$0.03097 


$3,027 


18,407.750 


$745,409 






$3,958 


$931 


May-91 


$1,491,360 







n/a 




43.498.245 


$1,352,143 






$0 


$0 


Jun-91 

JuWI 


$1,514,403 







n/a 




41.247.512 


$1,219,685 






$0 


$0 


$1,584,159 







n/a 




48,098.850 


$1,628,519 






$0 


$0 


Aug-91 


$1,895,450 







n/a 




45,446,850 


$1,606,062 






$0 


$0 


Sep-91 


$2,865,104 


- 


36,836,685 


$0.02556 


$941,546 


44,932,900 


$1,503,422 






$1,232,529 


$290,983 


Oct-91 


$2,800,371 


22.390,157 


$0.03168 


$709,320 


43.408,950 


$1,517,652 






$782,798 


$73,478 


Nov-9| 


$3,071,512 




27,629.752 


$0.03469 


$958,476 


46,881,400 


$1,751,984 






$1,032,539 


$74,063 


Dec-91 


$3,031,081 




30.787.692 


$0.03448 


$1,061,560 


54.656.950 


$1,939,626 






$1,092,571 


$31,011 


Jan-92 

" Feb-92 

Mar-92 


$2,992,432 


25.380,480 


$0.03602 


$914,205 


58.871,600 


$2,037,586 






$878,436 


($35,769 


$2,764,473 




25,178,162 


$0.03152 


$793,616 


51,239.230 


$1,853,698 






$910,878 


$117,263 


$1,565,540 







n/a 




49,848.403 


$1,847,918 






$0 


$0 


Apr-92 


$1,521,744 







n/a 




43.405,333 


$1,613,933 






$0 


$0 


May-92 


$1,511,281 







n/a 




38.453,403 


$1,408,652 






$0 


$0 


Jun-92 


$1,820,740 







n/a 




35,949,616 


$1,295,474 






$0 


$0 
























$414,841 


i 




















In these month* generation was so low that we purchased energy to meet boih our Class 1 And Class 3 power obligations to the Distriots. The kW-Hrs and $'i 
of Column (2) reflect this mixed rate sale. Note: Col. (2) Is used to calculate an average revenue ($/HW-Hr) used to oaJculate the revenue In Col (3). 


ill I 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 



























54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 7, 1992 



REVISED 



Attachment 2 



Hetch Hctchy Water & Power 


- Costs of capacity reserve purchased from PG&E compared to costs avoided when 
purchasing supplemental energy. 








paid for cap 




(2) 


(3) 


(4) 




What wc 


acity reserve 


The 

prepaid 
capacity 
wcused 
(kW-Mo) 


The Rate 
we avoided 
paying 
$/kW-Mo 


What we 
avoided paying 
for capacity 




kW 


$/kW 


$'s 


kW 


$/kW 


$'s 


Mar-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$16,499 


$986,640 


Apr-91 


59,800 $6.25 


$373,750 
$373,750 






$16,499 


$0 


May-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$16,499 


$0 


Jun-91 


59,800 


$6.25 j $373,750 





$16,499 


$0 


Jul-91 59.800J $6.25 | $373,750 





$17,678 


$0 


Aug-91 


59.80OJ $6.25 $373,750 





$17,678 


$0 


Scp-9 1 j 59,8001 $6.25 


$373,750 


59.800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Oci-91 59,800; $6.25 | $373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Nov-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Dcc-91 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 i $1,057,144 


Jan-92 


59.800 


$6.25 


$373,750 
$373,750 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Feb-92 59,800 


$6.25 


59,800 


$17,678 


$1,057,144 


Mar-92 


59,800 j $6.25 


$373,750 
$373,750 






$17,678 


$0 


Apr-92 


59,800| $6.25 


$17,678 


$0 


May-92 


59,800! $6.25 j $373,750 





$17,678 1 


Jun-92 


59,800 


$6.25 


$373,750 





$17,678 








$5,980,000 






$7,329,507 


— 


i 






j 


Net benefit of prepaid capacity reserve ■ 


$1,349,507 



610.1S 

, . CALENDAR A^h**" 7afc«» 

<\ MEETING OF 
C 9k FINANCE COMMITTEE 

ABOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

•"' 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ - ITEMS 1 AND 7 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 79-91-2.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development, 1992 Community 
Development Block Grant Program, in the amount of $50,000, for the San 
Francisco Housing Authority Tenant Improvement Pool. (Mayor's Office of 
Economic Planning & Development) 

ACTION: Release of $50,000 of recommended. Filed. (Reserve to be released with 
the provision that each individual tenant proposal will have a 16 percent 
contingency limit and that any residual funds be added to the 1993 SFHA 
Tenant Improvement Pool program or returned to MOCD for 
reprogramming.) 

(b) File 101-91-74.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond, in the amount of 
$700,000, for the War Memorial Opera House, Earthquake Safety Program 
Phase 2 for an engineering study. (Department of Public Works) 



ACTION: Release of $700,000 recommended. Filed. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 16 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



(c) File 94-92-8 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission to apply for, accept and expend $1,500,000 in Federal 
Capital Assistance including the required local contribution from the Clean Air 
and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 funds and/or State Transit 
Assistance funds and/or Bridge Toll Net Revenues and/or San Francisco 
Municipal Railway Improvement Corporation funds and/or Transportation Sales 
Taxes revenues to provide financing for the design and rehabilitation of the 
Municipal Railway's Fixed Facilities. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to apply for, 
- accept and expend $1,500,000 in Federal Capital Assistance 
including the required local contribution from the Clean Air and 
Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 funds and/or State 
Transit Assistance funds and/or Bridge Toll Net Revenues and/or 
San Francisco Municipal Railway Improvement Corporation funds 
and/or Transportation Sales Tax revenues to provide financing for 
the design and rehabilitation of the Municipal Railway's Fixed 
Facilities; placing $1,273,862 on reserve." 

(d) File 94-92-9 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission to apply for, accept and expend $15,000,000 of Federal 
Capital Assistance and $2,647,059 in required local match funds to acquire 
trolley coaches. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to apply for, 
accept and expend $15,000,000 of Federal Capital Assistance and 
$2,647,059 in required local match funds to acquire trolley 
coaches; placing $17,250,382 on reserve." 

(e) File 146-92-52.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a 
continuation grant of $2,102,567, which includes in indirect costs of $241,709 
based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the Department of Health 
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, to continue funding AIDS 
Surveillance Project; companion measure to File 146-92-52.1. (Department of 
Public Health) 

ACTION: Continued to October 21, 1992, meeting. 

(f) File 146-92-69 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health Services, to accept and expend a grant of 
$630,000, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $30,580, based on 
twenty percent of salaries from the Federal Bureau of Health Care Delivery 
Assistance for linked primary care and substance abuse services; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



(g) File 146-92-70 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Family Health, Child 
Health and Disability Prevention Program (CHDP), to accept and expend an 
allocation in the total amount of $2,187,178, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $251,836, based on twenty percent of salaries from the State 
Department of Health Services for child health and disability prevention 
services; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Department of 
Public Health) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, lines 6 and 23, by replacing "20%" with 

"17%". Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing the 
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services, 
Family Health, Child Health and Disability Prevention Program 
(CHDP), to accept and expend an allocation in the total amount of 
$2,187,178, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$251,836, based on seventeen percent of salaries from the State 
Department of Health Services for child health and disability 
prevention services; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken." 

(h) File 146-92-71 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Public Health, Community Health Program, Family Health Bureau, to apply 
for, accept and expend a grant of $1,384,872, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $97,447, based on ten percent of personnel cost from the State 
Department of Health Services for WIC services; providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

(i) File 147-92-3.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San 

Francisco Public Library to accept and expend $85,000 in grant funds from the 
U.S. Department of Education Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) 
for the purchase of foreign language materials for the Fiscal Year 1992-93; 
companion measure to File 147-92-3. (Public Library) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, at the end of line 6, by adding "waiving 

indirect costs". Further amended at the end of page 2, by adding 
"FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors does 
hereby waive indirect costs." Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept and 
expend $85,000 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of 
Education Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) for the 
purchase of foreign language materials for the Fiscal Year 
1992-93; waiving indirect costs." 



(j) File 153-92-4 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department 
of Social Services to accept and expend, the third year grant funds from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Bureau 
in the amount of $172,800 including the indirect cost of $8,228 which is based 
on five percent of the total direct charges for Federal Fiscal Year 1992-93 for 
development of case management services to medically fragile and HIV 
positive infants. (Department of Social Services) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Department of Social Services to accept and expend, 
retroactively, the third year grant funds from the Department of Health 
and Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, in the amount of 
$172,800, including the indirect cost of $8,228 which is based on five 
percent of the total direct charges, and a required match in the amount 
of $168,000 consisting of Department of Social Services in-kind services, 
for Federal Fiscal Year 1992-93 for development of case management 
services to medically fragile and HTV positive infants; and authorizing the 
General Manager of the Department of Social Services to sign 
agreements for services provided through contractors funded by this 
grant." 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 161-92-6 . [Groundlease of Redevelopment Agency Land] Resolution approving 
the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco's lease of the 
land at Assessor's Block 3726, Lots 13 and 15, commonly known as 1028 Howard 
Street, to 1028 Howard Street Associates, a California Limited Partnership for 99 
years for the purpose of developing a housing project for very low and low income 
households. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

3. File 264-92-1 . Hearing to consider implementation of an early retirement program 
for all employees not included under Charter Section 8.517-2 (Proposition A, 1991). 
(Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

4. File 42-92-25 . [Street Closing] Resolution waiving the requirement that the sponsor 
of the Annual Halloween street closing in the Castro Street area provide insurance 
and waiving all fees except for the street closure permit fee and the loudspeaker 
permit filing fee. (Supervisor Britt) 

(Cont'd from 10/7/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Waiving the requirement that the sponsor of the Annual Halloween 
street closing in the Castro Street area provide insurance; waiving all 
fees except for the street closure permit fee and the loudspeaker permit 
filing fee; and urging the sponsor to make good faith efforts to raise 
funds to defray the costs incurred in conducting the street closing." 



File 121-92-10 . Hearing to consider a review of Taxi Cab License Fee Ordinance 
No. 383-91. (Supervisor Kennedy) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

File 65-92-13 . [Lease] Ordinance approving lease between Recreation and Park with 
Theatre Bay Area to operate a discount ticket booth at Union Square Garage. 
(Recreation and Park Department) 
(Cont'd from 10/7/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Approving lease between Recreation and Park with Theatre Bay Area to 
operate a discount ticket booth at Union Square Garage; requesting the 
lessee to provide discount memberships to at least 50 members of the 
Recreation and Park Department's Young People's Teen Musical Theater." 



7. File 51-92-2. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for 

reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

(Cont'd from 10/7/92) 

April, May, June 1992 

ACTION: Continued to October 21, 1992, meeting. 




City Report 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

October 9, 1992 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item la -File 79-91-2.5 

Department Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Item: Release of reserved funds for a Tenant Improvement Pool 

program which has been established by the San Francisco 
Housing Authority (SFHA) 

Amount: $50,000 

Source of Funds: Community Development Block Grant Funds 

Description: On December 9, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the 

City's 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program 
(File 79-91-21) in an amount of $20,093,535. At the same time, 
the Board of Supervisors placed $50,000 for a Tenant 
Improvement Pool program on reserve, pending the 
completion of a detailed application package and procedure to 
implement the improvements by the San Francisco Housing 
Authority (SFHA). The $50,000 would be added to the 1991 
Tenant Improvement Pool of $100,000 to increase the total 
amount of the Tenant Improvement Pool to $150,000. 

In regard to the subject Tenant Improvement Pool, the SFHA 
has created a "Mini Grant Application" package and 
established a review committee consisting of residents, SFHA 
staff and a community representative to evaluate the 
applications and make decisions as to the allocation of the 
existing $150,000 in the Pool. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Of the 38 SFHA housing developments, the SFHA received 18 
applications, of which, 17 proposals (see Comment 2 below) 
were awarded CDBG mini grants by the SFHA, as follows: 



Proposals 

Hayes Valley South 

Potrero Terrace and Annex 

Woodside Gardens 

345 Arguello Boulevard 

25 Sanchez Street 

Mission Dolores 

430 Turk Street 

Valencia Gardens 

Holly Courts 

Ping Yuen 

John F. Kennedy Tower 

Rosa Parks (1251 Turk Street) 

Golden GateView (491-31st Ave) 

350 Ellis Street 

666 Ellis Street 

Alice Griffith 

320/330 Clementina Street 

Alemany 



Requested 


Final 


Amount 


Amount 


$20,983 


$10,000 


10,000 


10,000 


4,200 


4,200 


9,920 


8,120 


10,000 


10,000 


1,500 


1,500 


7,200 


7,200 


10,000 


10,000 


10,000 


5,000 


10,000 


10,000 


9,450 


8,000 


$6,200 


$6,200 


10,000 





9,680 


9,680 


6,400 


6,400 


10,000 


10,000 


10,000 


10,000 


10.000 


3.000 



Subtotal $165,533 $129,300 

Contingency (16%) 20.700 

Total $150,000 

Less: Funds released from the 1991 CDBG 

Tenant Improvement Pool, File 79-90-4.3 100.000 

Total (Subject of this Legislation) $50,000 

The applicant work to be done includes: 

Hayes Valley Tenant Association - reopening of the laundry 
facility, removal of sand from the playground for 
replacement with rubber mat and installing a half basketball 
court. 

Potrero Terrace and Annex Development - replacement of 
exterior light fixtures for both project areas. 

Woodside Gardens Tenants' Association - repair and 
improvement of laundry room, upgrading of entrance lobby 
and floor signs for the visually disabled. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



345 Arguello Boulevard Tenants' Association - repair of 
social room ceiling, lights and corridor carpet replacement. 

25 Sanchez Street Tenants' Association - installation of a gate 
on rear of garage, bars on lower floor windows and 
installation of a fence over Duboce Street exit door. 

Mission Dolores Tenant Association - installation of an iron 
gate at the rear entrance of the building to secure this area. 

430 Turk Street Tenants' Association - installation of metal 
grill and gate at front entrance door and installation of metal 
grills on front windows of lobby entrance. 

Valencia Gardens Tenants' Association - renovation and 
completion of the Family Community Center - wall mounted 
locking cabinets, double sink and drop ceilings (acoustic 
tiles). 

Holly Courts Tenants' Association - renovation of the 
playground areas including replacement of playground 
equipment, basketball courts and removal of sand, etc. 

Ping Yuen Residents' Improvement Association - 
playground and yard facility renovation of all buildings and 
replacement of gate at 655 Pacific Avenue. 

John F. Kennedy Tower Tenants' Association 
improvements to social room, elevators, first floor lobby, 
stairwell exit doors and front entrance door. 

Rosa Parks Tenants' Association - remodeling for proposed 
mini market including wall shelves, dutch door counter, 
window guard grills. 

350 Ellis Street Tenants' Association - replacement of front 
door, installation of locking system on front gate, 
improvement of lighting in halls and stairway. 

666 Ellis Street Tenants' Association - replacement of 
entrance gate and construction of a protective railing on the 
existing wall and upgrading and installation of additional 
exterior lighting in the front of the building. 

Alice Griffith Tenants' Association - resurfacing of 
playground black top at the Boys and Girls Club and 
replacement of missing parts of the fence in Boys and Girls 
Club yard. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



320-330 Clementina Street Tenants' Association - 
replacement of drain in laundry room, brighter lighting on 
all floors and lighting in the elevators. 

Alemany Resident Management Council, Inc. - installation 
of a kitchen facility for the community room which is not 
currently included in the modernization plans. 

1. An amount of $75,000 has been proposed to continue a 
SFHA Tenant Improvement Pool program in the 1993 
Community Development Program. The 1993 Community 
Development Program will be submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors for review and approval later this month. 

2. Ms. Irene Doss of the SFHA advises that the approval of 
proposals for elderly projects were restricted to security 
improvements, and, because the Golden Gate View proposal, 
which would have replaced corridor carpets and pads only, 
did not fulfill the guideline that the improvement provide 
added security to the elderly project, it was not approved for 
funding. 

3. According to Mr. Wayne Lawrence of MO CD, the amount 
of the contingency totaling $20,700, or 16 percent of the total 
$129,300 awarded to the 17 approved proposals, has been set 
aside for cost overruns. However, Mr. Lawrence advises that 
no specific limit on the use of contingencies has been 
established for individual approved proposals. The Budget 
Analyst believes, and MOCD concurs, that there should be a 
limit on the use of contingencies for individual approved 
proposals, and that limit should be the same 16 percent as set 
aside for the total cost of all the approved proposals. 

4. MOCD concurs that any remaining contingency balance 
should be added to either the proposed continuation of this 
program activity in 1993 as identified in Comment 1 or 
reprogrammed for other eligible Community Development 
Program activities. 

Release the reserve with the provision that each individual 
tenant proposal will have a 16 percent contingency limit and 
that any residual funds be added to the 1993 SFHA Tenant 
Improvement Pool program or returned to MOCD for 
reprogramming. MOCD concurs with this recommendation 
and will implement its provisions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item lb -File 101-91-74.1 

Department; Department of Public Works 

Item: Release of $700,000 of Earthquake Safety Bond funds reserved 

pending selection of contractors and the determination of 
their MBE/WBE status, for an engineering study of the War 
Memorial and Opera House. 

Description: In June, 1990, the San Francisco electorate approved a bond 

issue for the purpose of repairing earthquake damage and 
seismically upgrading various City facilities which are often 
visited by members of the public, such as Civic Center 
buildings, Public Health buildings, and the Performing Arts 
Center. The bond issue included $42,225,900 for earthquake 
repair and seismic upgrades to the Opera House. 

On June 26, 1992, a supplemental appropriation request of 
$58,860,000 for Phase II 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond funds 
was approved by the Board of Supervisors (File 101-91-74). Of 
the total $58,860,000 supplemental appropriation, $11,244,000 
was placed on reserve for the Performing Arts Building 
project, of which $700,000 was designated for the Opera 
House, pending selection of contractors and the 
determination of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

The $700,000 requested to be released would support a portion 
of a $1,056,691 contract with EQE Engineering and Design 
and Structus Structural Design and Engineering, a joint 
venture, to conduct an engineering study of the Opera House. 
The contractor has agreed to perform the following eleven 
tasks, as follows: 

(1) Establish the project design criteria; 

(2) Provide building investigations (ie, conduct a detailed 
examination of the building); 

(3) Conduct a Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) study to maximize earthquake damage 
reimbursement from FEMA; 

(4) Analyze data collected on the existing building; 

(5) Develop three schematic retrofit scenarios; 

(6) Provide schematic strengthening details for the three 
developed scenarios; 

(7) Analyze non-structural bracings, including anything 
that is not part of the building structure itself, such as 
light fixtures; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



(8) 



Complete mechanical, electrical and plumbing studies 
for inclusion in analyses; 

(9) Estimate costs of three scenarios; 

(10) Present information to the Bureau of Architecture and 
other agencies as necessary; 

(11) Implement management and administration of project 
in regard to subcontractors, such as geotechnical, 
mechanical and electrical experts and others. 



Comments: 



1. The DPW has selected EQE Engineering and Design and 
Structus Structural Design and Engineering, a joint venture, 
based on a competitive bid. The Bureau of Architecture 
received 15 bids for the proposed study. Structus Structural 
Design, at 35 percent of the joint venture, is a certified MBE 
firm, according to the Human Rights Commission, and EQE 
Engineering and Design is a registered MBE firm. 

2. Mr. Mark Dorian of the Department of Public Works 
advises that the DPW has not begun any earthquake repairs 
at the Opera House. Mr. Dorian reports that the seismic 
structural deficiencies of the Opera House appear to be such 
that any earthquake repair work would need to be demolished 
at the start of seismic upgrading, which would render any 
previous repair work useless. 

3. Of the total $1,056,691 contract, $700,000 would be supported 
by the proposed release of reserve, and $300,000 was 
previously released from the same bond sale, and $56,691 was 
previously released from a prior bond sale. The total $356,691 
was previously released for program, planning and design 
work, according to Mr. Dorian. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Item lc -File 94-92-8 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to 
apply for, accept, and expend Federal Capital Assistance 
including the required local contribution from the Clean Air 
and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 funds and/or 
State Transit Assistance funds and/or Bridge Toll Net 
Revenues and/or San Francisco Municipal Railway 
Improvement Corporation funds and/or Transportation Sales 
Tax Revenues to provide financing for the design and 
rehabilitation of the Municipal Railway's Fixed-Facilities. 



Federal Funds 

Match from local and regional match sources 
(as identified above) 
Total 



$1,200,000 

300.000 
$1,500,000 



Grant Period: 


October 1992 through September 30, 


1995 (Fed* 


Project Budget 


Project Design 






5258 Senior Mech Engineer 


$9,548 




5268 Architect 


12,071 




5206 Associate Civil Engineer 


44,762 




5266 Arch Asst II 


13,880 




5360 Civil Eng Assoc I 


13,609 




5366 Engineering Assoc II 


12,605 




5354 Elect Eng Assoc I 


5.444 




Subtotal 






Project Management 






5501 Project Manager II 


27.270 




Subtotal 






Construction Management 






6235 Heating Vent Inspector 


18,864 




6318 Construction Inspector 


15,898 




Subtotal 





Procurement and Construction 

Contingency (based on 10.5 percent of 

procurement, construction, project and 
construction management) 



$111,919 



27,270 



34,762 
1,146,470 



127,392 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Indirect Costs (based on department and 

City-wide overhead) $ 52.187 

Total $1,500,000 

Description: This project includes various modifications to subway, surface 

and maintenance facilities throughout the MUNI Metro 
System. Modifications include work on platforms, curbs, 
standpipes and pavement in order to accommodate the larger 
size transit vehicle to supplement the existing Light Rail 
Vehicle (LRV) fleet with the new LRV II vehicles. 

This project represents the fourth in a series of four capital 
projects to rehabilitate existing MUNI Metro fixed facilities. 
The four projects include: 

Project Title Total Funds 

Metro East Facility Project $1,500,000 

Eureka Portal Reconstruction 1,751,800 

Fixed Facility Rehab inc. Cable Car Hatch Cover Installation 1,500,000 

Fixed Facility Rehab Improvement, system-wide (this item) 1.500.000 

Total Metro Fixed Facilities Improvements $6,251,800 



Indirect Costs: The PUC has included an amount of $52,187 in the subject 

budget to cover Department and City-wide overhead costs. 

Comments: 1. The subject legislation identifies Federal grant and local 

match funds that would make alterations to subway, surface 
and maintenance facilities to accommodate larger LRVs than 
are currently in service in the MUNI fixed rail system. A 
separate proposed LRV II contract with the firm Breda of Italy 
specifies production of a larger transit vehicle than the 
existing Boeing- Vertol transit cars. This improved transit 
design would provide: (1) a longer car body, providing greater 
passenger space, cab space and less under seat equipment; (2) 
a wider car, increasing aisle width and improving passenger 
flow; (3) four doors, instead of 2 doors, reducing the standing 
time at stations and improving system running time; and (4) 
improved body and roof design allowing roof mounted 
equipment. 

2. Mr. Jerry Levine of the PUC Finance Bureau advises that 
Requests for Proposal (RFP) for Procurement and 
Construction, and Contingency costs totaling $1,273,862 are 
pending. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

3. Mr. Levine also advises that the current MBE/WBE/LBE 
goal for MUNI capital projects is 32 percent and, through the 
quarter ending June 30, 1992, the actual amount in 
MBE/WBE/LBE contracts is only 21.5 percent, 10.5 percent 
below MUNI's stated goal. As of June 30, 1992, a total of 
$42,790,863 in contracts have been approved for MUNI projects 
and of that total $9,196,021 have been let to MBE/WBE/LBE 
contractors. 

Recommendation: Reserve $1,273,862 for procurement and construction 
($1,146,470) and contingency ($127,392) as identified in 
Comment 2 above, pending identification of the contractors, the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors and the contractors' 
cost details. 

Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Item Id -File 94-92-9 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Commission 
(PUC) to apply for, accept, and expend Federal Capital 
Assistance and a required local match funds from the State 
of California Transit Capital Improvement funds, and/or the 
Kopp-Katz-Baker Transportation Blueprint for the Twenty- 
First Century and/or AB 664 Bridge Toll Revenues, and/or 
Regional Measure One Bridge Toll Revenues, and/or Transit 
Development Fee, and/or San Francisco Municipal Railway 
Improvement Corporation Funds, and/or Transportation 
Sales Tax Revenues to acquire trolley coaches. 

Federal Capital Assistance Section 3 Funds $15,000,000 
Match from local and regional match sources 

(as identified above) 2.647.059 

Total $17,647,059 



Grant Period: 


October 1992 through December 31,1995 (3 years & 3 months) 


Project Budget 


Proiect Activitv 




Amount 




Purchase of Vehicles 
Trolley Cost 
Sales Tax @ 8.5 percent 
Subtotal 


$13,662,240 
1.161.290 


$14,823,530 




Spare Parts 
Cost of Parts 
Sales Tax @ 8.5 percent 
Subtotal 


1,219,842 
103.687 


1,323,529 




Direct Project Costs 




475,113 




Professional Services Agreement 




617,647 




Contingency 




264,706 




Indirect Costs 




142.534 




Total 




$17,647,059 




Federal Share (85%) 
Local Share (15%) 
Total 




15,000,000 

2.647.059 

$17,647,059 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Description: This application for Federal funding continues the phased 

replacement of MUNI's remaining Flyer fleet with the 
purchase of twenty-two (22) articulated trolley coaches and 
spare parts. 

MUNI's existing fleet of 345 Flyer standard-sized trolley 
coaches would be replaced over the next several years with a 
mix of roughly 213 articulated and 100 standard trolley 
coaches for a total of 313 transit vehicles. An interim goal of 
90 articulated and 100 standards has been set based on near- 
term storage capacity of MUNI's current storage facilities. 

It is MUNI's expectation that the Flyer trolley fleet can be 
fully replaced over the next ten years. While the number of 
vehicles comprising the fleet will be reduced from 345 to 313, 
the Standard Coach Equivalency of passenger space will 
increase from 345 to 420 with the larger articulated vehicles. 
The 10 year phased replacement plan allows for a phased, 
small scale renewal of the fleet and recognized limitations of 
MUNI's financial and staff resources. 

Required Match; $2,647,059 

Indirect Costs: The PUC has included an amount of $142,534 in the grant 

request to cover Department and City-wide overhead costs 
which is calculated as 30 percent of the Direct Project Cost 
identified in the budget (see comment 6). 

Comments: 1. PUC has amended the subject legislation with a revision to 

the Project Budget as follows: 



Project Activity 

Purchase of Vehicles 

Trolley Cost $13,662,240 

Sales Tax @ 8.5 percent 1.161.290 

Subtotal 

Spare Parts 

Cost of Parts 1,219,842 

Sales Tax @ 8.5 percent 103.687 

Subtotal 

Direct Project Costs (see Comment 3 and 4) 

Professional Services Agreement 
(see Comment 5) 

Contingency (see Comment 6) 



Amount 



$14,823,530 



1,323,529 
376,117 

617,647 
393,401 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Indirect Costs (see Comment 7) $ 112.835 

Total $17,647,059 

2. PUC estimates that 22 trolley coaches will be purchased 
with the subject grant. Because a contractor for the 
manufacturing of the trolleys and spare parts has not yet 
been selected, the funds budgeted for these purchases totaling 
$16,147,059 should be reserved pending identification of the 
contractors, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors and 
the contractors' cost details. 

3. Direct Project Costs include Project Management, Vehicle 
Acceptance Testing, Post Acceptance Preparation and Direct 
Travel Expenses for the 3 year and 3 month period, October 
1992 through December 1995. This $376,117 amount amends 
the original budget amount of $475,113 for Direct Project 
Costs which was identified for a 5 year and 10 month grant 
period. The revised budget is as follows: 

Project Management 

9188 Transit Equip Engineer $ 19,920 

5174 Administrative Engineer 91,750 

5240 Electrical Engineer 106.722 

Subtotal $218,392 

Acceptance Testing 

7409 Elect Transit Serv Worker 5,183 

7379 Elect Transit Mechanic 6,002 

7380 Elect Transit Mech Asst Supr 32,025 
7214 Elect Transit Equipment Supr 9.480 

Subtotal 52,690 

Post Acceptance Preparation for Service 

7318 Elect Maint Technician 3,890 

7329 Elect Maint Tech Asst Supr 6,275 

7409 Elect Transit Serv Worker 2.595 

Subtotal 12,760 

Direct Travel Expenses 92.275 

Total Direct Project Costs $376,117 

4. Direct travel expenses totaling $92,275 should be reserved 
pending PUC providing cost details on the need to travel. 

5. Mr. Fred Howell of PUC advises that the Professional 
Services Agreement for $617,647 is because a consultant will 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

be hired to develop the draft specifications for the trolley 
coach purchase, assist in the evaluation of bids and monitor 
the manufacturing of the trolley coaches. Pending the 
identification of the contractors, the MBE/WBE/LBE status of 
the contractors and the contractors' cost details, the $617,647 
budgeted for professional services should be reserved. 

6. PUC has amended the budget's contingency line item by 
increasing the amount by $128,695 from $264,706 to $393,401. 
The contingency amount of $393,401 represents 2.4 percent of 
the total purchase cost for the trolleys and spare parts. The 
revised $393,401 amount of funds set aside for contingencies 
should be reserved along with the funds set aside in reserve 
for the purchase of the trolleys and spare parts. 

7. The Indirect Cost total of $142,534 has been revised to 
$112,835 to reflect the modification to Direct Project Costs 
from $475,113 to $376,117. The new Indirect Cost total of 
$112,835 is calculated at the same 30 percent level based on 
the revised $376,117 amount for Direct Project Costs. 

8. Mr. Jerry Levine of PUC advises that the current 
MBE/WBE/LBE goal for MUNI capital projects is 32 percent 
and, through the quarter ending June 30, 1992, the actual 
amount in such contracts is only 21.5 percent, 10.5 percent 
below MUNI's stated goal. As of June 30, 1992, a total of 
$42,790,863 in contracts have been approved for MUNI 
projects during the previous nine months and of that total 
$9,196,021 have been awarded to MBE/WBE/LBE contractors. 

8. As indicated in Comments 2, 4, 5 and 6 above, a total of 
$17,250,382 should be reserved pending additional 
information on cost details for budgeted funds for contractual 
services, travel and contingencies. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the proposed resolution as follows: 

Page 3, Line 7, change $1,326,529 to $1,323,529 to correct a 
numerical error in the proposed resolution; 

Page 3, Line 8, change $475,113 to $376,117 to reflect the 
budgeted change to the Direct Project Costs; 

Page 3, Line 10, change $264,706 to $393,401 to reflect the 
budgeted change to the Contingency amount; and 

Page 3, Line 11, change $142,534 to $112,835 to reflect the 
revised calculation for the Indirect Cost amount. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



2. Reserve $17,250,382 for trolley and spare parts purchases 
($16,147,059), for travel ($92,275), for professional services 
($617,647) and for contingencies ($393,401) as identified in 
Comments 2 through 5 above, pending identification of cost 
details for travel and contractual services including the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

L4 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item le - File 146-92-52.1 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend a continuation grant, which includes 
indirect costs of $241,709 based on 20 percent of personnel 
costs, from the Centers for Disease Control to continue 
funding the AIDS Surveillance Project. 

$2,102,567 

January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 

Federal Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

AIDS Surveillance and Seroprevalence Project 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-92-52) authorizing the DPH to apply for a grant of up 
to $2.5 million from the CDC to continue funding the ADDS 
Surveillance Project. The proposed resolution would 
authorize the DPH to accept and expend this grant of 
$2,102,567 to continue funding the AIDS Surveillance and 
Seroprevalence Project. The AIDS Surveillance Project 
identified and tracks cases of AIDS through various 
methods, including surveillance at seven San Francisco 
hospitals, visits to private physician's offices, routine 
reporting by physicians and other health care practitioners, 
death certificate surveillance, and various other sources. The 
AIDS Surveillance Project collects other information 
regarding identified AIDS cases, such as the coincidence of 
other diseases, medical history, and test results. Useful 
supplemental data is also collected, including census tract, 
diagnosing hospital, ethnicity, and history of antiviral 
therapy. AIDS surveillance information is disseminated to 
community-based organizations, medical centers, medical 
providers, AIDS organizations, and hospitals. 

The Seroprevalence Project estimates the prevalence of HIV 
infection in San Francisco through surveys. These surveys 
are designed to estimate the level of HIV infection in various 
populations and to monitor trends over time. The proposed 
grant would support surveys to be conducted at various sites 
throughout the City and in various other counties. 1993 
populations to be surveyed include young men, homeless 
youth, women seeking family planning, and non-injection 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
MJDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 
Project Budget 



drug users. In the Bay Area, the counties of Alameda, 
Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara 
and Sonoma County would participate in seroprevalence 
surveys. Seroprevalence data would be used to target and 
evaluate HIV/AIDS prevention programs. 



Required Match: None. 



$241,709, based on 20 percent of salary costs. 



Personnel 


FTE 




Sr. Health Programmer 


0.2 


$10,414 


Health Program Coordinator III 


0.8 


36,655 


Epidemiologist III 


1.0 


63,724 


Epidemiologist II 


2.0 


97,700 


Epidemiologist I 


0.1 


4,394 


Sr. Disease Control Investigator 


4.0 


180,595 


Disease Control Investigator 


11.0 


490,432 


MIS Specialist III 


0.3 


12,702 


MIS Technician II 


2.7 


65,519 


Senior Programmer Analyst 


0.5 


28,560 


Programmer Analyst 


1.0 


42,696 


Sr. Microbiologist 


1.0 


55,252 


Laboratory Helper 


0.5 


15,264 


Secretary II 


1.0 


38,569 


Sr. Clerk Typist 


1.0 


36,480 


Physician Specialist 


0.1 


11,101 


Social Worker 


05. 


18.486 


Subtotal Salaries 


27.7 $1,208,543 


Fringe Benefits at 26 % 




314.220 


Total Personnel 






Travel 






Local Travel 




13,650 


Out-of-Jurisdiction Travel 






(mandated trips to funder) 




3,600 


Total Travel 






Equipment 






Personal Computers 






(3 at approximately $2,862 each) 


8,585 


Software 




1,087 


Computer Network Equipment 






(cables, cards, etc.) 




2,035 



$1,522,763 



17,250 



Total Equipment 



11,707 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Materials and Supplies 




Office Supplies 


$10,143 


Clinical Supplies 


3,000 


Laboratory Tests (a total of approx. 




13,000 various HIV tests) 


73,383 


Slides 


500 


Educational Supplies 


1,000 


Furniture 


3,570 


Subscriptions 


500 


Total Materials and Supplies 




Contractual Services 





$92,096 



University of California, Women's Health Centers 

San Francisco General Hospital 

(see Comment 5) 

Salaries $16,500 

Fringe Benefits @ 18% 3.000 

Total Contractual Salaries 19,500 

Materials and Supplies 500 

Total UC Women's Health 20,000 

Haight-Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc. 

Salaries 16,000 

Fringe Benefits @ 19% 3.000 

Total Contractual Salaries 19,000 

Materials and Supplies 1.000 

Total Haight Ashbury Free Clinics 20,000 

Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, 
Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, Marin County 
(see Comment 6) 
Salaries 15,000 

Fringe Benefits @ 26% 3.900 
Total Various Counties 18.900 

Total Contractual Services 58,900 

Operating Expenses 

Rent 52,191 

Telephone 24,173 

Photocopy Lease 9,100 

Postage 3,340 

Courier Services 2,000 

Printing 3,300 

Reproduction 4,838 

Advertising 800 

MIS Account 2,500 

National Death Index Fees 3,400 

Incentives for Survey Participants 25,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Insurance $ 7.500 

Total Operating Expenses $138,142 

Recreational Vehicle (RV) Costs (see Comment 3) 
RV fuel, oil, tolls, etc. 2,400 

RV parking 1,100 

RV rental and insurance 14.400 

Total RV Costs 17,900 

Training 2,100 

Indirect Costs 241.709 

Total Project Budget $2,102,567 

Comments: 1. The proposed grant includes $241,709 in indirect costs, 

which is equal to 20 percent of salaries, not including fringe 
benefits. 

2. The proposed grant would be the third year of a five year 
grant. The proposed grant of $2,102,567 represents a $116,455 
or 5.9 percent increase over the prior year's grant of 
$1,986,112. 

3. A portion of the proposed grant would support a Young 
Men's Study, where DPH personnel would travel in a mobile 
recreational vehicle (RV) to sites where young men are 
known to congregate in order to provide HIV testing. Funds 
to support this RV are included under RV Costs, at a total of 
$17,900. 

4. The DPH advises that local travel costs, at $13,650, include 
25<2 per mile for use of employee vehicles. Employee vehicles 
are to be used for surveillance staff to conduct surveillance 
activities and field investigations, for seroprevalence 
personnel to travel between project sites, for the Young Men's 
Survey coordinator to investigate and negotiate multicounty 
survey sites, and for travel to mobile Young Men's Survey 
sites. 

5. The University of California (UC), Women's Health 
Centers, San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), at $20,000 
for contractual services, would estimate the prevalence of the 
HIV virus among women attending the abortion clinic at 
SFGH. The survey would allow the DPH to compare HrV 
prevalence for women in the abortion clinic with women 
carrying their pregnancies to term in demographically 
similar populations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

The Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc., at $20,000 for 
contractual services, would estimate HTV seroprevalence 
among non-injection drug users entering their detoxification 
program. 

According to the DPH, the UC Women's Health Centers and 
the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc. were selected 
on a sole source basis because these organizations have been 
collecting and analyzing data for the surveys of non-injection 
drug users and women seeking family planning for the first 
two years of the project. The funder has mandated that these 
organizations be retained to complete their survey work. The 
University of California and the Haight Ashbury Free 
Medical Clinics are non-profit organizations. 

6. Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, 
Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, and Marin County, at 
$18,900, would support personnel from the various counties to 
assist Young Men's Survey personnel to conduct survey 
activities in their counties, and would give test results and 
post-test counseling to survey participants in their respective 
counties. The various counties were selected on a sole 
source basis, as they were the county governments in the 
areas surveyed. These sole source selections are also 
mandated by the funder, according to the DPH. 

7. The proposed grant includes $11,707 for computer 
equipment. The DPH has not received authorization from the 
Electronic Information Processing Steering Committee 
(EIPSC) for the proposed computer purchase. Therefore, 
$11,707 should be reserved pending EIPSC approval. 

8. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared 
by the DPH. 

9. The DPH has completed a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

Recommendations: Amend to reserve $11,707 pending EIPSC approval, and 
approve, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



1 h Cnmrm^iop 



Dept of Health .id Human Services 

c r a , r Centers for Disease Control 

Contact Person Nealeen Austin/Jeff Efird 
.j Hr ,« 1600 Clifton Road 



Summary of r r nnf Pentl^t 

CO/AIDS Div 



AIDS Office 



Atlanta, GA 30305 



Division 

Section 

Contact Person Tim Piland 

Telephone 



554-9132 



Amount Requested 5 2,102,567 

Term: Froz, 1/1/93 To 12/31/93 



Health Commission 
I 



9/15/92 



Application Deadline 8/17/92 
Notification Expected 10/15/92 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



Item Description: 



Request to fcpyitxfcs) (accept and expend) a (hdct$ (continuation) (dtaEaoaxr^^aaxmxtXKarxjcjtj^ 

grant in ihe amount of S 2, 102,567 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93 

to pmvirif. continued support for AIDS Surveillance Project services 



TJ Ci (m rr| ^ r V- ( Coci*jV^ij%orv; ^x£ uituvod; e^=bcr • r~»^» x^^: "^-<cej LidprvvTiri) 

Firs t year of new three-year project period; funds all HIV/AIDS surveillance and se ro- 
prevalence activities conducted by the.AIDS Office; project will include National D eath 
Index Project activites as well beginning this year; please see detailed descriptio n of 
AIDS Surveillance Project activities included in this resolution package. 



ITT. Outcnm»s/Ohiecfive< 

The overall object of this project is to generate meaningful morbidity and mortality 



data about the nature of this epidemic in order to identify and address HIV/AIDS di sea; 
trends and issues. 



TV. rrr,r- 



' f S^urrinr 



T.rr-,in n pnn nt TW.. r,,r,r?c- 



Failure to accept and expend these funds would significantly impair our ability to 
measure and track the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco; failure to accept and expend 
these ep idemiologic research funds wo uld also jeopardize future grant funding. 



Financial Tn formation: 

Col. A 
Two Year, Ago 



Cnl. R 



jr/'Orig. 



Cnl. C 

Proposed 



Cnl. D 



Gran: Aruoust 
Persons el 
Equipment 
' C o c : r a c i S v c 
Ma:. & Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 



1,685,616 1,986,112 2,102,567 + 116,455 
1,112,330 1,393,627 1 ,522,763 + 129,136 
18.180 



vi 


Dtita 


P-n C -«' 


;in<7 


w 


P f r, 






VTT 





F/T CSC 
P/T CSC 
Contractual 



6.473 

156.529 

102.126 

35.986 

93.678 

214.750 



6.473 



27. 40 



6.75 



156.529 

102.426 

35.986 

94.152 

221,211 



18,180 



29.70 



6.75 



11,707 
58,900 



6,473 
97,629 * 



92,161 - 10,265 

52,191 + 16,205 

123,136 + 28,984 



241, 709 r + 20. 4< 



11,707 



6,473 



27.70 - 2.00 



Rec. Match 



None 



TBD 



TBD 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this <>i 
None 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If jo, Ho^ 

- No 



'JUlll. fnnf-:i.-,u:il S- 



Opeo Bid 



Sole Source 2 renewals (a . 



^Reflects decrease in seroorevalence contract funding; see BuHppr CY 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item If - File 146-92-69 

Department Department of Public Health (DPH) 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 

Project: 

Description: 



No. of Persons 
to be Served 



Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend a grant of $630,399, which includes 
indirect costs in the amount of $30,580, based on 20% of 
salaries from the Federal Bureau of Health Care Delivery 
Assistance for linked primary care and substance abuse 
services, and providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 

$630,399 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of 
Health Care Delivery Assistance. 

October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 

Primary Care/Addiction Linkage Treatment Services (PALS) 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 
apply for the proposed grant (File 146-92-66). The proposed 
grant would fund the fourth and last year of a four-year 
demonstration project to link primary health care to drug 
treatment and counseling. The project has three primary 
objectives: (1) to plan, implement and study the feasibility 
and outcomes of projects in which substance abuse and 
primary care services are co-located, (2) to study the impact 
on health outcomes when case management is provided in 
this context and (3) to provide training for medical and 
nursing staff, allied health staff, social workers and 
community based organizations on substance abuse, primary 
care, HIV disease, mental illness and the implications for 
service provision which occur because of the inter- 
relationship between these elements. Primary care and 
substance abuse services would be provided to project clients 
through the City-operated Tom Waddell Clinic, and the non- 
profit Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and the non-profit Bayview 
Hunters Point Foundation. A staff training component 
would also be provided at Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. 
Additionally, the University of California, San Francisco, 
Institute for Health Policy Studies would continue to serve as 
an evaluation consultant for the program. 



Approximately 200 new clients and 160 continuing clients for 
a total of approximately 360 clients. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Project Budget: 



FTE 



Indirect Costs: 
Required Match: 
Comments: 



1.0 


$51,548 


1.6 


70,574 


.5 


25,786 


.2 


4.990 




$152,898 




42.811 


3.3 


$195,709 




$1,500 




2,000 




400.610 




$404,110 




$30,580 




$630,399 



Personnel 

Project Coordinator 
Medical Social Worker. 
Registered Nurse 
Clerk 

Subtotal 
Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal Personnel 

Operating Expenses 

Travel and Training 
Supplies 
Contractual 
Subtotal 

Indirect Costs 
Total 



$30,580, based on an estimated 20 percent of salaries. 
None 

1. Contracts with existing contractors would be renewed 
which includes the following: 

Bayview Hunters Point Foundation $153,839 

Haight Ashbury Free Clinic 197,226 

UCSF Institute for Health Policy Studies 49.545 

Total $400,610 

2. The $1,500 budgeted for travel and training would fund the 
Project Coordinator to attend the Linkage Project conference 
in Washington D.C. 

3. The DPH advises that since this is the last year of a four- 
year demonstration project, the Department will not retain 
the grant positions when funding for this project is 
terminated. 

4. As noted above, the grant period is from October 1, 1992 to 
September 30, 1993. Ms. Janet Murphy of the DPH reports 
that in order to prevent a gap in service, this program has 
continued to operate even though the DPH has not previously 
requested the Board of Supervisors to authorize the 
acceptance and expenditure of the proposed grant funds. Ms. 
Murphy advises that the Haight Ashbury Medical Center, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Bayview Hunters Point Foundation and the UCSF Institute 
for Health Policy Studies have continued to provide contract 
services, and when the proposed grant funds are received, 
the DPH will reimburse these contractors for their 
expenditures. According to Ms. Murphy, the services 
provided by the City have been funded through the 
Department's excess Salary Savings (Temporary Salaries - 
Community Public Health Services). Therefore, the proposed 
resolution provides for ratification of action previously taken. 

5. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared 
by the DPH, for this proposed grant. 

6. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



ttem No. H"?!!^ rn^-"^tjn^ - ^urnm^rv °*" ; ~- r ?^' ? *-" 'i»<:t Rev. i/lC.90 

Cr.Mor HHS-5H:DA Division -PHS . 

Contact rerson Kathleen Sa.^le Section administration 



Addrcss 1 2100 Parklawn Drive Contact Pfrson Jan Murphy 



Rockville, M.D. 20857 Telephone 5S4-7617 



Amount Requested S 630,399.00 Application Deadline 7/31/92 

Term: Fr om 10/1/92 To 9/30/93 Notification Expected 9/30/92 



Health Commissicr. Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard 

T. Item Dfscrlpti-"-; Request to l£$i for/ (accept and expend) a (ddJ) (continuation) (atiocVi/or^ (ai/^antiubTKl^ kj 
( c«k .ppr^. — *) gT2J)l jj, lhe ^ourn f s 630,399.00 from the period of 10/1/92 l0 9/30/92 

to pmvirie linked primary care and substance abuse. services. 

bcr » prowpi *o*-*£; w^«j t&4 p»w*"iA=r» ) 

ie program which provides coordinated linkage between 

primary health care and substance abuse servirps in San Francisco. Approximately 200 
new clients and 160 continuing clients will receive primary care, substance abuse and 
case management services. Training will be provided for 900 health professionals. 

7TT. Outcome t/Qb'f ctiv? *: 

To improve access to care and health outcomes for IV drug users, reduce prevalance of 

IV drug use, reduce spread of HIV infection among IV drug users, and to raise awareness 

among health careproviders of the importance of linking medical care, substance abuse 

and HIV services. 

TV, PTf>ct* a£ Rrjucti"" " r T»"~r"ingti"" nf Thr*r Fut'o'*: 

Reduction or termination of these funds would make it impossible to continue the 

project. 

V. Financial T" fn ~n-i8tipn: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Pec Match Approved b^ 

TwoYtirsAgo Pzsi Year/Orij. Proposed Ck»--ige 

Grant Amount 920.209 623,871 630,399 +6,528 

Personnel 258,609 192,935 195,709 +2,774 

Equipment 4 .855 0_ 

-Contract Svc. 512.824 391,985 400,610 +8,625 

Mat. & Supp. 46,200 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 

Facilities/Space 



Other 40,000 4,462 1,500 (2,962) 

Indirect Costs 51,721 30,489 30,580 91 



VT . TlSTS Prnr-ci 


i„. 


leal txJw»J .ko-O 




VTT, P.rcnnn.l 





F/T CSC 6 3 ._? (1) 



P/T CSC .20 1.70 1.3 (.A) 

Contractual 7.9 7.9 7.65 (.25) 

Source(s) of non-;r2nt funding for saUries of CSC employees workin; part-time on this £ r2n ' : 



»\ ill jrant funded employees be retained 2fter this grant terminates? If so, Hoi 
NO. 



IZL — C"ntr ? rTn?l ^rvjf.y Open Bid Sole Source XX 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Item lg 



File 146-92-70 



Department: 



Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Community Public Health Service, 
Family Health, Child Health and 
Program 



Disability Prevention 



Amount: 

Source of 
Allocation: 



Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend an allocation in the total amount of 
$2,187,178, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$251,836, based on 20% of salaries, from the State Department 
of Health Services for Child Health and Disability Prevention 
Services, and providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 

$2,187,178 



State Department of Health Services 



Term of Allocation: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 



Project: 
Description: 



No. of Persons 
to be Served: 



Child Health and Disability Prevention Program (CHDPP). 

The CHDPP includes four programs: Child Health and 
Disability Prevention, Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis 
and Treatment, Public Health and Nursing Enhancement 
and Prenatal Care Guidance. The services facilitate regular 
pediatric health screening for Medi-Cal children under 21 
and children in low income families, ages up to 29 months 
and those entering the first grade. Information, referral and 
outreach services are also provided to families of the children 
and pregnant women eligible for Medi-Cal. 



Outreach services to 91,037 Medi-Cal and low income 
children 

Outreach and case management services to approximately 
980 high risk pregnant women. 



BOARD OF SI IPEKVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Budget 



Personnel 

Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) 



Project Coordinator 
Health Educator 
Executive Secretary I 
Clerk 

Health Worker III 
Public Health Nurse 
Subtotal Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal CHDP 

Early Periodic Screening 
Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) 

Project Coordinator 
Medical Consultant 
Clerk Typist 
Health Worker III 
Health Worker II 
Public Health Nurse 
Senior Clerk Typist 
Health Worker I 
Social Worker 

Subtotal Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal (EPSDT) 

Public Health and Nursing 
Enhancement (PHNE) 
Public Health Nurse 
Supervising Public Health Nurse 
Clerk Typist 

Subtotal Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal PHNE 

Prenatal Care Guidance (PCG) 
Public Health Nurse 

Subtotal Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal PCG 

Operating Expenses 
Materials and Supplies 
Rent 

Subtotal 



FTE 



.25 


$20,853 


1.40 


77,084 


1.00 


35,896 


1.00 


28,756 


1.00 


31,676 


.10 


6.868 




201,133 




58.329 



4.75 



7.75 



$259,462 



.25 


20,853 


.25 


23,509 


1.00 


22,000 


1.00 


34,731 


1.00 


34,012 


2.00 


137,703 


.75 


22,793 


1.00 


25,120 


.50 


47.352 




368,073 




106.741 



5.00 


343,385 


1.50 


125,115 


.25 


7.598 




476,098 




142.829 


6.75 




6.50 


415.004 




415,004 




120.351 




$32,924 




13.860 



474,814 



618,927 



535,355 



46,784 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Indirect Costs 
Total 



FTE 



25.75 



$251.836 
$2,187,178 



The total allocation of $2,187,178 consists of Child Health and 
Disability Prevention ($282,904), Early Periodic Screening 
Diagnosis and Treatment ($564,379), Public Health and 
Nursing Enhancement ($721,407), and Prenatal Care 
Guidance ($618,488). 



Indirect Costs: $25 1 ,836 or 20 percent of salaries 

Required Match: None 

Comments: 1. According to the DPH, the proposed State allocation, in 

contrast to a State grant, is a direct allocation of funds and 
does not require that the DPH submit an application to the 
State. Therefore, the proposed resolution only includes 
authorization to accept and expend the proposed State 
allocation. 

2. The proposed grant includes $251,836 for indirect costs 
which represents approximately 17 percent of salaries. 
However, the proposed resolution indicates that indirect costs 
are based on 20 percent of salaries. Ms. Mildred Crear of the 
DPH reports that the Department made a policy decision to 
include 17 percent as opposed to 20 percent in order to allow 
more funding for direct services. Since the Department's 
decision to reduce the indirect costs from 20 percent of 
salaries to 17 percent of salaries results in less 
reimbursement to the General Fund, approval of the 
Department's decision to reduce the indirect costs is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

3. As noted above, the grant period is from July 1, 1992 to 
June 30, 1993. Ms. Mildred Crear of the DPH reports that in 
order to avoid a gap in service, this program has continued to 
operate for the past three and a half months even though the 
DPH has not previously received authorization from the 
Board of Supervisors to accept and expend these proposed 
grant funds. Mr Larry Ross of DPH, Accounting advises that 
the Program is being funded with excess Salary Savings 
(Temporary Salaries - Community Public Health Services). 

4. In 1991-1992, the DPH received a total of $2,105,021 for the 
CHDPP. The proposed $2,187,178 allocation for 1992-1993, 
represents a $82,157 or 3.9 percent increase. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



5. The DPH reports that the Department has been allocated 
funds from the State for the CHDPP since 1976. The 
Department dose not expect the State to terminate this 
annual allocation. 

6. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared 
by the DPH, for this proposed grant. 

7. A Disability Access Checklist is included in the Board of 
Supervisors file. 

Recommendations: 1. Approval of the indirect costs at 17 percent of salaries 
instead of 20 percent of salaries is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 

2. If the Board of Supervisors approves the Department's 
decision to reduce the indirect costs, the proposed legislation 
should be amended to delete reference to the phrase 20 
percent of salaries in the title and body of the legislation and 
add 17 percent of salaries and the proposed resolution should 
be approved as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



H r ):s c_t 



LTLTL 



\ r ^~"-\- n 



UiLil 



1/10/90 



,- , State Health Department 

Contact I'trion Doug Mc Conkie 



Family Health 



Address 714 P St. . Rm. 708 

Sacramento, CA 95814 



Amount Requested S 
Term: From 7-1-92 
Health CornmiSJlor. 



,187,17 



To 6-30-93 
Board of Supervisors 



Section Child Health & Disabilit y PrQventio! 

Contict Person Mildred Crear (CI 

Telephone 415-554-9950 

Appllcitlon Deadline n/a 

Notification Expected 



Finacce Committee. 
Full Dcird 



T. )tfm Pf<crlpii"": Request to (spply forX(i:cc pt and cxtxin ^ z (newX^con^u3u'og)( fiUocauon }>(augm^nuiuon to a) 
( c^* -yr^-" —~> grpjit in the amount of ? 2 .187 , 178 fr m the period of /-l-a'2 To 6-30-93 

to provide referral for well child and prenatal services. 

TT, Summer' - : ( o~^vi>«"T:r~-4 ^a^-~^-. =^=.'jc» • tm-y **^~<f. -=rvic<j ~.-^ r <.-.-,„ > 

Outreach services to 91,037 Medi-Cal and low income children 0-21 years to get them ^ nrier 
medical care. Outreach and case management services to high risk pregnant Medi'-Ca]_ wome 



ITT. QulCom;s/phi;ctivr5: 

To inform new target population of CHDP eligibility to increase the number of CHDP ex ams. 
Promote anti-tobacco health education to provider community. 

T v . Krfrrt* "T K r d •_■ c t j " n nr Te "-mtngtinn of Xlms Fi'Pd c ; 
Decrease health services to this high-risk population. 



V. Financial T n fnrms tion: 



Col 



Col, g 
?»si Ycar/Orij. 



Ftc-?o:cd 



Crjat Amount 

Personnel 

Equipment 

Contract Svc. 

Mat. & Supp.- 

Fa cili ties/Spac j 

Other 

Indirect Costs' 

VT. Q jgja Pr"r-" 

V ?I. Pfrtnnnr t 
F/T CSC 

p/t esc 

Contractual 
Sourre(i) of D ot>. 



T^-0 Ycj.-: A;o 

$1,559,646 $2,105,021 $2,187,178 
1,398,929 1,888,558 1,888,558 



11,380 



32.792 



32.924 



12.600 



13.860 



136.737 



13,860 



169.679 



13 



25 



25 



Co', n 

Cr.u-.jc 

$82,157 
-0- 



132 



251,836 82,157 



for siUrlcs of CSC employees ^orr:!::; 



P- r Q , Match 



A r> n r r. v » rj b ■ 





















Will ;rant 


fur.deri 


. ipiO; e-:S ?e 


resair.cd a.".: 


- this 


s r 


set 


•.er.-asiiiw? if 


sc, How? 





















vn; <-„- 



i Hid 



»1 



• 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item lh -File 146-92-71 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 

apply for, accept and expend a continuation grant of 
$1,384,872, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$97,447, based on 10% of personnel costs, from the State 
Department of Health Services, and providing for ratification 
of action previously taken. 

Amount of Grant: $1,384,872 

Source of Grant: State Department of Health Services 

Grant Period: October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 

Project: Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program 

Description: The WIC Program provides nutrition education and 

supplemental foods to pregnant, lactating or post-partum 
women and to children under age five who are receiving 
ongoing medical care. Eligible clients must also meet 
Federal income guidelines, reside in the local target area and 
be determined by a health professional to be at nutritional 
risk. 



No. of Persons 








to be Served: 


14,079 participants per month 






Grant Budget 


Personnel 


FTE 






Sr. Nutritionist 


1.0 


$59,815 




Nutritionist 


5.5 


295,882 




Health Worker III 


1.0 


37,538 




Health Worker II 


5.0 


166,389 




Health Worker I 


14.5 


413,853 




Clerical 


.1 


1,000 




Subtotal Salaries 




$974,477 




Fringe Benefits (29%) 




283.216 




Subtotal Personnel 


27.1 


$1,257,693 




Operating Expenses 








Staff Mileage 




$4,000 




Equipment Lease 




3,050 




Rent 




4,001 




Materials and Supplies 




9,681 




Communications 




6,000 




Educational Materials and Supplies 


3,000 




Subtotal 




$29,732 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 






BUDGET ANALYST 








30 







Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Indirect Cost 
Total 



$97.447 
$1,384,872 



Indirect Costs: $97,447 or 10 percent of personnel costs excluding fringe 

benefits. 

Required Match: None 



Comments: 



1. The application deadline for the proposed grant was July 

1. 1992. The DPH advises that the application for these grant 
funds has already been submitted. Additionally, according to 
Mr. Steve Purser of the DPH, in order to prevent a gap in 
service, the WIC Program has continued to operate without 
the Board of Supervisors' prior authorization for the 
acceptance and expenditure of the proposed grant. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution provides for ratification of 
action previously taken. Mr. Purser advises that the 
Program is being funded with WIC grant monies carried 
forward from 1991-1992 . 

2. The proposed $1,384,872 in State grant funds for 1992-1993 
is $50,314 or 3.7 percent greater than the $1,334,558 DPH 
received in 1991-1992. 

3. Attached is a Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by 
the DPH, for the proposed grant. 

4. A Disability Access Checklist, for each of the eight 
program sites, is included in the file. 



Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Grantor State Dept of Health Services 

Con:ui Person Jo Ann Wrav. Chief of WIC 

Address 714/744 P Street 

Sacramento. CA 95814 



Dlvliloc _ 

Section _ 

Contact Perse: 
Telephone 



CPHS 



Fair.ilv Heal th 



Florence Stroud 



415/554-2620 



Amount Requested S 

Term: From 10/01/92 
Ht2)th Commission 



1 ,384,872 



To 09/30/93 
09/01/92 Donrd 



Application Deadline . 
Notification Expected 



_Q21QU92_ 



09/15/92 



Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Board 



T. Urm Description; Rtqucs: 10 (ajxply-fcv) (accept and expend) 2 (££#) (continuation) (Si>acXl4StCKC£i^KitHtt^»rLXK:zO 
coo. .pp-oyri.- -»*) gr2nl jj. Qj. 2mounl f S l .384. 872 from ihc period of 10/01/92 to 09/30/93 

to provide __1£I£ services 

Thp WTC Program provides nutirtion education and supplemental foods to pregnant women, 
lactating or postpartum women, and children under- five years who are receiving ongoing 

medical care, meet Federal income guidelines, reside in the target area, and are 

determined bv the health professional to be at nutritional risk. The Department of 

Health has administered this program since 10/86. 

TTT. Outcnmrt/Ob'rctivft: 

1) To continue providing WIC services to 4,362 women, -4,784 infants and 4,924 children 
for a total of 14,-079 participants per month. 2) To augment outreach and counseling 
services by professional staff. 



nf "Rfdurt 



Health and nutritional services to high-risk clients will be curtailed. 



"in2ncJ2l Inform e t i o n : 



£oL 



Grant Aao'jat 
? ersoaE el 
Equipment 
'Contract S v c. 
Mat. £ Snpp. 
F2ciii:ies/Sc2C' 



IWOVC!.-! AjO 

1.072.856 

1 ,017,114 

29,074 

-0- 

16,000 

1,000 



Indirect 
Travel 



Costs 



Frr CSC 
?/T CSC 
C o a : r 2 c : 



2,000 



4,6c 



3,000 



29 



£ 


nl. 


2. 


Xi 


334 


r/Orij. 

.558 


1 , 


181 


,303 




5 


.000 




-0- 






18 


,500 


1 




29 


,500 




93 


,754 




6 


,500 




'5 


J)00 


29 


.73 





CM. C 

Proposed 

1,334,872 
1,257,693 
50. 

-0- 

10,000 



1 



15,681 

97,447 ' 

4,000 



-0- 



26 
1.1 



Col 


r 


1 


+ 50. 


314 


+ 


76. 


390 


- 




.950 


-0- 


- 


8. 


,500 


-0- 


_ 


13 


,819 


+ 


■: 


.693 


- 


2. 


,500 




5 


.000 




3 


.00 


- 




.37 





Match 



Source(s) of aoa-jraDt funding for S2l2ri:s of CSC employees wcrkic; par'.-tiss 
None 

\* ill jrast funded employees be retsiaed after this f^ran: terminates? If so, How? 
It is not forseeable that this grant will terminate. 



Open Bid 



Sol: Source 



32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Item li -File 147-92-3.1 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Budget: 



San Francisco Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to 
accept and expend $85,000 in grant funds from the U.S. 
Department of Education Library Services and Construction 
Act (LSCA) for the purchase of foreign language materials 
for the fiscal year 1992-93. 

$85,000 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Department of Education 

Foreign Language Program — Ethnic Focus Centers 

The Board of Supervisors has previously authorized the San 
Francisco Public Library to apply for up to $85,000 in grant 
funds from the U.S. Department of Education to augment its 
foreign language collections (File 147-92-3). The proposed 
resolution would authorize the Public Library to accept and 
expend $85,000 which has been approved by the U.S. 
Department of Education for this program. 

The proposed grant funds would be used to provide Spanish, 
Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast 
Asian core collections for the Library. The new collections 
would include reference works, fiction and non-fiction books, 
periodicals, and audio and video recordings in these 
languages, as well as software programs to enhance library 
access for non-English speaking residents of San Francisco. 

The proposed grant funds would be expended for new 
acquisitions in the following languages: 



Children's book (all languages) 

Spanish 

Vietnamese 

Chinese 

Japanese 

Korean 

Southeast Asian 

Software (all languages) 

Total 



$12,000 

17,000 

13,000 

28,000 

4,000 

3,000 

5,000 

3.000 

$85,000 



Required Match: None 



BOARD OF SUPKRVISOHS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



No. of Persons 
Served; 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Increasing numbers of residents who use the Spanish, 
Chinese, and Southeast-Asian languages. 

None. The Library Commission reports that the U.S. 
Department of Education prohibits the inclusion of indirect 
costs under this grant. 

1. Since the U.S. Department of Education, the grantor, 
prohibits the inclusion of indirect costs, the proposed 
resolution should be amended in both the body and title to 
reflect that indirect costs are waived. 

2. Although the Board of Supervisors previously authorized 
the Public Library to apply for "up to $85,000" (File 147-92-3), 
Ms. Hope Hayes, Chief Librarian for the Main Library, 
reports that the Public Library was notified on October 5, 1992 
that grant funding of $85,000 has been awarded for Federal 
fiscal year 1992-93. 

3. Ms. Hayes indicates that the items to be acquired using the 
grant funds have not yet been identified. The specific 
materials to be purchased will be determined through 
consultations among multi-cultural librarians at the Main 
Library and the branch libraries, according to Ms. Hayes. 

Ms. Hayes states that the new materials will be organized 
around Ethnic Focus Centers, which will provide centralized 
locations for library materials in different languages. The 
Ethnic Focus Centers will be housed at the Main Library. 

Ms. Hayes indicates that grant funds will be allocated by the 
U.S. Department of Education on a reimbursement basis 
after the Public Library's purchases are made. 

4. According to Ms. Hayes, processing of the new materials 
would be performed as part of the Public Library's regular 
duties using existing budgeted funds. Ms. Hayes indicates 
that some of the purchased materials will include pre- 
printed card catalogue references, which will minimize the 
impact of processing the materials on the staff of the Public 
Library. 

5. Ms. Hayes reports that the Public Library's existing 
collections in the foreign languages targeted under the grant 
are quite limited. She states that the grant funds will enable 
the Public Library to expand its foreign language collections 
in these languages by more than 200 percent. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

6. Attached is a copy of the Grant Application Information 
Form as submitted by the Public Library. 

7. A Disability Access Checklist for the Main Library is on 
file with the Clerk of the Board. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the body and title of the proposed resolution to 

waive indirect costs. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
I H IDC J ET ANALYST 

35 






File Numb>r 



Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany 3 proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Bsard of Supervisors 



Attn: 



The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolutio 1: 

Department Library 



Project T 
Grant Sou 
Proposed 



Clerk of the Board 



Contact P trson: Elizabeth Hope Hayes 



Telephone; 557-4200 



.tie: foreign Language Program - Ethnic Focus Centers 

c»: U.S.Qsoartment of Education. Library Sarvicas unri GontgUflfctpn Act ( 
New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 



San Frani isco Public Library Library System includes the Main Library, 19 neighborho 
branches seven reading centers, a library for the blind and print-handicapped and 
a bookmolile. Within the Main Library there are seven major subject departments, 
special ! ervices for the Deaf and Hearing-impaired and a literacy program, Project 
Read. S; stemwide over 3.2 million items circulate annually. Special emphasis is 
placed 01 meeting the information needs of San Francisco's multi-lingual, multi- 
cultural economically diverse communities. 

The purpi se of this grant is to provide Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and other 
Asian co: e collections of reedy reference, software and popular library materials 
in varioi s formats for adults snd children at the Main Library. Funds will be used 
to ere Bts adult and children's Ethnic Focus Centers, which will enhance the existing 
non-Engl:eh language collections, and will be tailored to the needs of the diverse 
ethnic papulations of San Francisco. This grant responds to changing demographics 
in the T<nderloin, which according to the 1990 Census of Population has had a 
93% incn ase in Asian residents. The Library circulated 450,000 foreign language 
items pe: year. This grant will supplement the Library's materials budget and 
enable pi rchase of thousands of indispensible items. 

Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: . . $85,000.00 

Maximum Finding Amount Available: $65,000.00 

Required iJatching Funds: none 



Number of 
Amount to 
Will Cont 



Positions Created and Funded: 



be Spent on Contractual Services: 
actual Services be put out to Bid? 



36 



Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Term of 

Date Dep 

Applicat 

Grant Fu 
appropri 



Jr ant : 



Oct. 1. 1992 - Seot. 30. 1993 



irtment Notified of Available funds: 

•a 

ion Due Date: March 9. 1992 



August 1992 



iding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 

itions legislation) : 



Grants vill.be awarded to. libraries that demonstrate effective management plans, 
high quslity design, committment to serving under-represented groups, cost 
effectiveness, needs of service group. Funds are for purchase of materials 
far libiary collections, such materials to be in languages other than English. 




ting City Librarian 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item li - File 153-92-4 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description- 



Department of Social Services 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Social Services to 
accept and expend the third year grant funds from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Maternal and 
Child Health Bureau, in the amount of $172,800 including the 
indirect cost of $8,228 which is based on 5 percent of the total 
direct charges for Federal fiscal year 1992-93 for development 
of case management services to medically fragile and HrV- 
positive infants. 

$172,800 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Fragile Infant Special Care Program ("Baby Moms") 

Since 1987, the Department of Social Services (DSS) has 
operated the Fragile Infant Special Care Program, also 
known as "Baby Moms," which provides specialized foster 
care services to infants classified as medically fragile or who 
have tested positive for HrV. In December 1990, the Board of 
Supervisors authorized DSS to apply for a three-year grant 
(File 153-90-6) from the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services for a demonstration research project to 
develop a comprehensive case management system, a 
standardized assessment program, and preparation of 
written guidelines concerning the program for use by other 
social service agencies. 

In the first two years of grant funding, DSS has developed a 
comprehensive data management system to monitor infants' 
medical status and developmental progress, and has 
matched these infants with a comparison group in order to 
evaluate the program's impacts. 

The proposed resolution would authorize DSS to accept and 
expend grant funding for the third year of the three year 
grant program. The funds would be used to analyze and 
report research findings and prepare written documentation 
which would allow the program to be replicated by other 
agencies. 



BOARD OF SI JPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



Budget: 



Services under this grant are provided through personal 
service contracts with independent contractors who manage 
the research activities. 



Contractual Services 
Project Director 
Project Coordinator 
Developmental Specialist 
Physician 
Program Analyst 
Subtotal 



FTE 


Amount 


.65 


$46,900 


1.00 


39,521 


1.00 


45,150 


.15 


11,813 


.25 


13.125 



3.05 



Travel 
Other 
Total Direct Costs 



$156,509 

5,063 
3.000 



Indirect Costs (@ 5 percent of total direct costs) 
Total Grant Amount 



$164,572 

8.228 

$172,800 



Required Match: 



No. of Persons 
Served: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



$168,000 is provided by DSS through in-kind contributions, 
consisting of staff, office space, and supplies in the Bureau of 
Family and Children's Services 



DSS reports that 120 infants are enrolled in the study. 

Indirect costs are $8,228, based on 5 percent of total direct 
costs of $164,572 

1. Of the total grant amount of $172,800, $156,509 would be 
used for contractual services for researchers. Services of a 
medical doctor are provided through a sole-source contract 
with the University of California at San Francisco. Two 
contractors were selected through a Request for 
Qualifications: Monica Brady, the Project Coordinator, a 
WBE sole proprietor, and Dianne Fritz, a developmental 
specialist, who is also a WBE sole proprietor. The Project 
Director, Don Cohen, and the Program Analyst, Brice 
Cooper, neither of whom are MBE/WBE contractors, were 
awarded sole-source contracts because they conceived and 
prepared the grant proposal to HHS, according to DSS. 

2. Mr. Walter Maciak of DSS reports that DSS is required to 
provide a local match of $168,000. The DSS contribution 
consists of in-kind services as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Personnel FTE Amount 

Child Welfare Supervisor .50 $27,222 

Child Welfare Worker 1M 96.824 

Subtotal 1.50 $124,046 

Fringe Benefits (@28 percent) 34.733 

Total Personnel $158,779 

Operating Expenses 

Office Space (200 sq.R @ $2/sq.ft/mos) 4,800 

Postage 506 

Telephone 2,000 

Photocopying 1,100 

Office Supplies 815 

Total Operating Expenses 9.221 

Total DSS In-Kind Contribution $168,000 

The proposed resolution does not reflect that the DSS in-kind 
contribution of $168,000 represents a required match, and 
should be amended accordingly. 

3. Mr. Maciak reports that services have already been 
performed under the proposed third-year grant. Therefore, 
the proposed resolution should be amended to authorize DSS 
to accept and expend the proposed grant funds retroactively. 

4. The title of the proposed resolution does not reflect that the 
proposed resolution, in addition to authorizing DSS to accept 
and expend the proposed grant funds, would authorize the 
General Manager of DSS to sign agreements for services 
provided through contractors funded by this grant. 
Therefore, the title should be amended. 

5. The Summary of Grant Request submitted by DSS is 
attached. 

6. A Disability Access Checklist for San Francisco General 
Hospital, where services would be provided under the 
proposed grant, is on file with the Clerk of the Board. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title and body of the proposed resolution to 
authorize this grant retroactively. 

2. Amend the title and body of the proposed resolution to 
reflect that the proposed grant includes a required match of 
$168,000 from DSS in-kind contributions. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



3. Amend the title of the proposed resolution to reflect that 
the proposed resolution would authorize the General 
Manager of DSS to sign agreements for services provided 
through contractors funded by this grant. 

4. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



tte- No.: Date: Sept . 22 ■ 

1992 

SOCIAL SE11VICES COMMISSION - SUHMAIIY OF GRANT REQUEST 

irontor Bureau of Maternal & Child Health & Re- DSS Pt( , qrJ1 Family & Children Services 



Grantor contact Parson Maxine Toense /sources Dev. 
Add r a 3 s 12300 Twinbroo): Pkway. Suite 10 0A 
Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Amount (Requested/Approved) $172.800 

Term Fro. 10/01/92 To 9/30/93 



DSS Progt 

Program Contact Parson ' Ann O'Rielly 557-5f 

DSS Contract Manager Walter Madak 

Telephone S57-55B1 

Source of funds: rederal/State/Other Federal 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee: Date 



Request to 

$ 172,800 



") (accept and expend) a _f»e-»r} (continuation) (allocation) grant in th« 
for the period beginning 10/1/92 to 9/30/93 



.rvice 



to provide 

purpose of grant : To develop a comprehensive data base and case management system to 

demonstrate the effectiveness -of the program, to write manual for national 

distribution and replication. 



III. Outcomes/Objectives: (including number of clients to be served) 

l. Select the database management system and appropriate hardware. 2. Develop the 
recording protocol tor data colleciton. 3. Enhance efficient use of staff time. 
4. Improve training curriculum. 5. Assess effectiveness of "Baby Mans" program's 
care of infants. 

IV. Effects of reduction/termination of these funds : 

Will delay work by program staff to monitor and improve service delivery system 
and conduct research efforts to demonstrate effectiveness of programT~~ 



Expenditure; 



(Last 
Fiscal 



Reg. Match 



Grant Amount 

^scettoeboc Travel 

Equipment 

Contracts 

Mot . L Supplies 

Faciliti es/Space 

Other 

Indirect Costs 



(Current 
Year if 

Any) 
120,000 
4,000 

115,000 



U000 



( Proposed ) 



172,800 



5,063 



156,509 



3,000 
8,228 



(Change ) 



VI . City Civil Service Pc 



No. «. Cli 



VII. Dr ief ileici ipt : 



3f service to be purchased by con 



This grant will fund services provided by 5 contractors. The goal is to dm/plop 
a system to capture data to improve service delivery systems a nd condu ct rp^e>arr* \ 
ettort to demonstrate program effectiveness . 



VIII (iint i actual Services: Open Did 



Sole 



42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item 2 - File 161-92-6 



Department Redevelopment Agency 

Item: The proposed resolution would approve the Redevelopment 

Agency's lease of the land at Assessor's Block 3726, Lots 13 
and 15, commonly known as 1028 Howard Street, to 1028 
Howard Street Associates, a California Limited Partnership 
for 99 years for the purpose of developing a housing project 
for very low and low income households. 

Description: The Redevelopment Agency is proposing to lease 

approximately 14,050 square feet at 1028 Howard Street to the 
1028 Howard Street Associates, a partnership established by 
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. 1028 
Howard Street Associates would pay $1 per year or a total of 
$99 in lease payments for a 99 year lease for the Howard 
Street property. 

The property at 1028 Howard Street is located within the 
South of Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project 
Area established by the Board of Supervisors in 1990. The 
proposed housing project would fulfill one of the specific 
objectives of the South of Market Project Area which is to 
replace the community's supply of low- and moderate-income 
housing which was lost due to the earthquake. The property 
at 1028 Howard Street was purchased by the Redevelopment 
Agency from KSW Properties for $1,090,000 using tax 
increment funds. The property was previously being used as 
a commercial parking lot and the Redevelopment Agency is 
currently leasing this property for the same use. Because tax 
increment funds were used to purchase this property, Board 
of Supervisors approval of the proposed ground lease is 
required. 

The total cost of the proposed project including the $1,090,000 
purchase price of the land by the Redevelopment Agency is 
$6,120,522. The source of funds includes the State Rental 
Housing Construction Program, the Federal Tax Credit 
Program, private financing, and sponsor equity from 1028 
Howard Street Associates. The funds from each of these 
sources is as follows: 

Federal Tax Credit Program $2,311,057 

State Rental Housing Construction Program 1,998,565 

Private Financing 595,900 

1028 Howard Street Assoc. - Sponsor Equity 125,000 

Land Purchase by Redevelopment Agency 1.090.000 

Total Cost of Project $6,120,522 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



1028 Howard Street Associates would build a 30 unit 
affordable family housing rental project on the proposed site. 
The table below details the mix of unit size and the 
corresponding rent that would be paid: 



Apartment 

Size 


# of 
Units 


Monthly 
Rental Rate* 


# of 
Units 


Monthly 
Rental Rate** 


1-Bedroom 


1 


$318 


4 


$572 


2-Bedroom 


4 


$342 


7 


$672 


3-Bedroom 


s 


$366 


fi 


$765 


Totals 


13 




17 





* The use of State Rental Housing Construction Program funds requires 
that a percentage of units be rented at 30% of median income. 

** The use of Federal Tax Credit Program funds requires that a 
percentage of units be rented at 60% of median income. 

The total rental income for the 30 units would be $16,196 per 
month or $194,352 annually. 

In addition to the apartment space, the project would also 
contain a community room and approximately 750 square 
feet of commercial space. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Phillip Williams of the Redevelopment Agency states 

that 1028 Howard Street Associates, a partnership 
established by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San 
Francisco, was one of three organizations responding to a 
Request for Proposals (RFP) to the 1028 Howard Street project. 
Mr. Williams states that Catholic Charities was picked as the 
developer because of their demonstrated capacity to develop 
this project, their success in developing several other 
affordable housing projects in the City, and support from 
within the community. 

2. Mr. Williams adds that the proposed below-market lease of 
$1 per year is required in order to make the project 
economically viable at the restricted rent levels mandated by 
the State and federal subsidy programs utilized by the project 
sponsor. The term of the lease is 99 years because the 
Redevelopment Agency desires to maintain the apartment 
affordability restrictions for as long a period as possible. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



3. Mr. Williams further adds that the estimated annual 
rental income of $16,196 per month or $194,352 annually and 
the estimated annual commercial income of $3,000 per 
month or $36,000 per year (for total annual revenues of 
$230,352 would be used to pay operating expenses, debt service 
on the private loan, and to repay the deferred loan from the 
State Rental Housing Construction Program. 

4. According to Mr. Williams, the previous owner at 1028 
Howard Street, KSW Properties, was paying approximately 
$656 annually in property taxes for use of the property as a 
parking lot. At the reassessed property value of $1,090,000, 
the annual property taxes would be $12,535 (based on the 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 tax rate of $1.15 per $100). Because 1028 
Howard Street Associates would be a non-profit housing 
development corporation, they would not pay any property 
taxes. 

5. The proposed development groundlease would require 1028 
Howard Street Associates to pay for all public improvements 
required for the site. This includes all site preparation 
activities; all utility services; and any resurfacing, 
rebuilding, or repairing of sidewalks or street pavement. 

6. The proposed development groundlease specifies that 1028 
Howard Street Associates will give priority consideration for 
the rental of commercial space to businesses and the rental of 
apartments to tenants whom have been displaced from the 
South of Market Redevelopment Project Area. 

7. The proposed development groundlease commits the 
developer, 1028 Howard Street Associates, to attempt to meet 
certain affirmative action and equal opportunity obligations. 
These obligations include: 

• The developer making a good faith effort to fill staff 
vacancies and vacancies in any retail businesses in 
accordance with the ethnic and gender composition of 
the City and give first consideration to employing 
residents of the City. 

• The developer ensures equal employment opportunities 
for minority group and women participation in the 
construction work force. The goal is for 25.6 percent of 
all construction hours to be awarded to minorities and 
6.9 percent of all construction hours to be awarded to 
women. 



HOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

• The developer ensures that Minority and Women 
Business Enterprises are provided an equal opportunity 
to compete for all planning, design and construction 
contracts. 

The developer is required to make frequent reports on their 
status in fulfilling these various goals and obligations. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed groundlease with 1028 Howard 
Street Associates at $1 per year for 99 years is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3- File 264-92-1 

Item: Hearing to consider the implementation of an early retirement program for 
all employees not included in the provisions of Proposition A. 

Description: 

1. All City employees, with the exception of 2,000 to 3,000 temporary 
employees, receive retirement benefits. City employees currently participate in 
four retirement plans, with membership as follows: 

Plan Approximate Membership 
Miscellaneous Plan 20,000 

Police Plan 1,800 

Fire Plan 1,400 

PERS Plan 1,000 

(PERS Plan members include various public protection personnel, 
such as Deputy Sheriffs, Probation Officers, Juvenile Hall 
Counselors, Airport Police, and Housing Authority Police) 

Within these categories, there are two tiers of retirement benefits. Some 
employees who have worked for the City since prior to 1976 receive Tier One 
benefits. Tier One benefits are higher than Tier Two benefits, which are received 
by employees who have worked for the City since after 1976 as well as some 
employees who have worked for the City since prior to 1976. (When the City moved 
to lower benefits in 1976, employees were given an opportunity to trade their 
higher benefit plans for a lump sum cash amount. Employees who accepted this 
cash buyout now receive Tier Two benefits.) 

2. In November, 1991, the San Francisco electorate approved a measure, 
Proposition A, to offer employees belonging to the Miscellaneous Plan who retire 
from February 1, 1992 to March 30, 1992 incentives to retire early. Specifically, 
employees who retired during the early retirement window are receiving 
retirement benefits as if they were three years older and had worked for the City 
three additional years. 1,336 City employees accepted the Proposition A early 
retirement offer. 

3. Proposition A was intended, in part, as a cost-saving effort. Proposition A 
required that at least 500, or 50 percent, of the vacated non-mandated City 
positions, whichever was larger be abolished. A net of 465 positions were 
abolished (500 positions were originally abolished, but 35 were restored during the 
budget process). The estimated FY 1992-93 net savings from the abolition of these 
465 positions is estimated to be $12 million, based on the total savings from the 
abolished positions, at $22.8 million, less the cost for immediately backfilling 
critical positions, at $3 million, less the cost of increased benefits for 1,336 City 
employees, at $4.5 million, less the cost of administering the program, at $3.3 
million. 



BOARD OF ST IPKRVTSQUS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

4. Members of the Police Plan, the Fire Plan and the PERS Plan were not 
eligible to receive early retirement benefits under Proposition A. The proposed 
hearing would consider the implementation of an early retirement plan for those 
employees. 

5. According to Mr. Kieran Murphy of the Retirement System, the PERS 
Plan, which is administered by the State, restricts the provision of early 
retirement benefits. As noted above, City employees belonging to the PERS Plan 
include non-Fire and Police Department public protection personnel, such as 
Sheriffs Deputies, Airport Police, and Probation Officers. Under the current 
regulations governing the PERS Plan, participants in the PERS Plan may be 
offered credit for a maximum of two additional years of service and no additional 
years of age as an incentive to retire early, Mr. Murphy reports. Such an incentive 
may only be offered if the City certifies that a "mandatory transfer, layoff, or 
demotion is imminent" and other conditions are met. Since there is currently no 
specific plan to transfer, lay off or demote PERS Plan members if an early 
retirement program is not in place, it would be difficult to certify that all the 
conditions necessary for an early retirement offer are in place, Mr. Murphy 
reports. 

6. Alternatively, according to Mr. Murphy, the Board of Supervisors and the 
Mayor could urge the State Legislature to modify its regulations regarding PERS 
to allow San Francisco PERS members to receive an early retirement offer that is 
different from the currently authorized PERS early retirement offer. Whether or 
not such an urging would result in a modification of PERS regulations cannot be 
determined at this time. 

7. Mr. Murphy provided estimates from April, 1992, regarding a combined 
Police and Fire Plan early retirement program that would provide credit for three 
additional years of age and service, two years of additional age and service, and 
one additional year of age and service, as follows: 

Total Present Value Estimated First 
Cost of Addl Benefits* Year Costs** 

$20,000,000 $1,200,000 

8,800,000 530,000 

2,200,000 130,000 

This net estimated cost takes into account any savings that might accrue from a reduction 
in the City's unfunded liability resulting from the replacement of Tier One with Tier Two 
employees. 

The total present value cost of additional benefits for each proposed program would be paid 
with interest over the estimated 20 year life of the retirees. 

Three added years of age and service would be the same early retirement benefit as was 
provided to miscellaneous employees in 1992. 



F ^ AT?r> of sin>raVTSORS 

-"Budget analyst 





Number 


Number Estin 




Eligible 


to Accept 


3+3*** 


736 


300 


2+2 


602 


193 


1+1 


490 


87 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

8. The 300 employees who would be anticipated to accept a "3+3" early 
retirement offer represent a larger portion of the Police and Fire Plan total 
membership than the portion of employees from the Miscellaneous Plan who 
finally accepted the early retirement offer. According to Mr. Murphy, this is due 
to the fact that a larger portion of Police and Fire Department personnel would 
attain the maximum allowable pension benefits, at 75 percent of final salary, than 
the portion of miscellaneous employees who attained the maximum allowable 
pension benefits under the Proposition A early retirement program. 

9. However, the savings from offering early retirement to employees of the 
Police, Fire and Sheriffs Department is likely to be lower than it was for 
Proposition A, since the positions abolished must be non-mandated, and the 
Police, Fire and Sheriffs departments perform mandated functions. The number 
of positions that could be eliminated from these departments, if any, would be 
specifically estimated at such a time as a specific early retirement program for 
Police, Fire and PERS Plans were proposed. 

10. According to Acting Chief Thomas Murphy of the Police Department, 
approximately two-thirds of the Police Department's command structure would 
be eligible for a "3+3" early retirement program. If a substantial portion of the 
Police Department's command structure retired and could not be replaced, this 
could impede the Department's ability to carry out its functions. Also, if the 
vacated positions were eliminated, promotion and hiring opportunities for 
minorities and women would be reduced. The Police Department is currently 
under a Consent Decree to hire women and minorities. Any reduction in sworn 
personnel would reduce police protection services to the public. 

11. According to Chief Joseph Medina of the Fire Department, all positions 
that would be vacated through an early retirement program would be required to 
be filled, because the Fire Department is under a seven-year Consent Decree to 
hire 500 employees. Chief Medina estimates that 90 percent of upper management 
would be eligible for an early retirement program. As with the Police Department, 
a significant, sudden reduction of upper management would impede the 
Department's ability to carry out its functions. In addition, Mr. Ray Connors of 
the Fire Department advises that the Fire Department is under a Consent Decree 
to provide 294 employees on duty each day, so that any salary savings resulting 
from vacant positions would be offset by increased overtime costs. 

12. If vacated positions in the Police and Fire Departments were not 
abolished, the large number of open positions would create promotional and 
hiring opportunities for women and minorities. 

13. Proposition A required that vacated positions be abolished for only one 
year. Any newly proposed early retirement package intended as a cost saving 
measure through abolishing vacated positions could guarantee longer-term 
savings by requiring that positions be eliminated for more than one year. 
According to PERS Plan regulations, any early retirement program must be 
created with the intent to permanently abolish vacated positions. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

k 9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

14. The Retirement System reports that one reason the costs for 
administering Proposition A were high was due to the short three month period 
between approval of Proposition A and the start of the Early Retirement Program, 
from November 2, 1991 to February 1, 1992. The Proposition A Early Retirement 
Program was largely administered by an outside contractor, Towers, Perrin, 
Forster and Crosby (TPF&C). If a longer period were given for preparation after a 
newly proposed early retirement program was approved and prior to the 
beginning of such a program, a larger portion of the administrative work could be 
performed by Retirement System staff. 

15. In addition, costs for administering a new program would be lower, 
since a portion of the contractor costs included the creation of a computer 
program tailored to calculate benefits. Since this program is now in place, any 
future contracts should not include this cost. 

16. Legislation approved by the Board of Supervisors after the contract for 
administration of Proposition A was in place, based on a finding of the Budget 
Analyst, requires that contracts include specified levels of service and cost limits. 
Therefore, any contractual costs should be more tightly controlled. 

17. In summary, any newly implemented early retirement program for 
public protection personnel would likely result in costs and savings that differ 
from the recently completed 1992 Early Retirement Program, as follows: 

• The savings that would accrue from an early retirement program for 
employees who were not eligible for the recent 1992 Early Retirement 
Program are likely to be less, since public protection positions are more 
likely to be deemed mandated and therefore could not be eliminated from 
the City's budget. The Fire Department reports that no Fire Department 
positions could be eliminated until after 1995, because the Fire 
Department is under a seven year Consent Decree to hire 500 employees. 

• Such savings might be increased if any newly proposed early retirement 
program included provisions for abolishing positions over a number of 
years, instead of for a single year only. 

• Costs for administering a new early retirement program would likely be 
lower, since a computer system for calculating benefits has been 
established, the Retirement System has recent experience in 
implementing an early retirement program, and any contractor would 
be required to adhere to cost limits and provide guaranteed levels of 
service. 

• Costs for administering a new early retirement program could be 
further decreased if adequate preparation time between approval of the 
program and the start of the early retirement window were allowed, 
thus providing the Retirement System with more time to implement a 
large portion of the program in-house. 

18. As an alternative to offering a "3+3" early retirement program, other 
early retirement programs might be considered. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 14, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

19. The Budget Analyst will provide specific cost and savings estimates 
when a specific proposal is introduced to offer early retirement benefits to the 
employees who were not included in the provisions of Proposition A. An early 
retirement program for the Police and Fire Departments would have the non- 
economic benefit to the City of providing hiring opportunities for minorities and 
women. However, based on our preliminary analysis, the Budget Analyst believes 
that such a program would result in high costs to the City and little savings. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item 4 - File 42-92-25 

Note: This item was continued from the October 7, 1992 Finance Committee 
Meeting. 

Item: Resolution waiving the requirement that the sponsor of the 

Annual Halloween street closing in the Castro Street area 
provide insurance and waiving all fees except for the street 
closure permit filing fee and the loudspeaker permit filing 
fee. 

Description: According to Section 2.70-3 of the Administrative Code, 

sponsors of events attended by more than 1,000 persons are 
required to provide an insurance policy naming the City as 
an additional insured, in an amount of $1 million or more. 
This insurance requirement may be waived by the Board of 
Supervisors if the event constitutes the exercise of rights 
protected under the First Amendment, and the event sponsor 
submits a sworn statement of indigency. 

According to Section 2.70-6(f) of the Administrative Code, the 
Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and 
Transportation (ISCOTT) determines the fees to be paid by 
events sponsors (aside from the standard Street Closing 
Permit Filing Fee, at $80, which is paid by all events 
sponsors), based on the actual costs to the City of the 
temporary street closing, pursuant to the following schedule: 

Fire Department fee: $129.00 

Public Health Application Fee: 50.00 

Public Health Permit Fee 25.00 

Public Health Fee Per Booth Selling Food 10.00 

Municipal Railway Fee: 4.42 

(per electrically powered vehicle hour) 
Police Department: up to $2,500.00 

(based on 40 percent of the projected 

Police Department costs) 

Any fees paid by events sponsors are to be deposited to the 
City's General Fund and credited to the departments which 
incurred the costs. The Administrative Code includes a 
provision for waiving only the Police Department fees, not for 
waiving any other fees. However, according to Mr. Ted Lakey 
of the City Attorney's Office, since these fees are imposed by 
the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors has the 
inherent power to waive such fees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a non-profit 
organization, organizes the Annual Halloween street closing 
in the Castro Street area. According to the proposed 
resolution, the street closing is intended to further 
educational and First Amendment objectives. The Sisters of 
Perpetual Indulgence has submitted a sworn statement that 
the organization is indigent and does not have the resources 
to pay for the insurance and fees required by the City to 
conduct this event, according to the proposed resolution. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution would waive the 
requirements for insurance and any fees that would be 
required by the City, except fees for the Street Closure Permit 
fee, at $80, and the loudspeaker permit filing fee, at $30, 
pursuant to Administrative Code Section 2.71. 

Comments: 1. The cost to the City of waiving fees for the Annual 

Halloween street closing are estimated to be $2,704 plus $4.42 
per Municipal Railway vehicle hour. 

2. According to Mr. Keith Grand, the City's Risk Manager, 
the costs of waiving the insurance requirement are 
potentially very high. Mr. Grand advises that California law 
specifies joint and several liability. Under joint and several 
liability, each party that is named as co-defendant in any suit 
is liable for up to the entire amount of awarded damages. 
Thus, if a severe injury or substantial damage to property is 
sustained by a spectator, participant or adjacent property 
owner of the Castro Street Halloween event, and the City as 
well as the sponsor of the event is named as a co-defendant in 
a lawsuit, the City would most likely be required to pay the 
full amount of the damages, since the sponsor of the event, 
the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, is indigent. The amount 
owed by the City would not be contingent upon the City's 
relative negligence, but rather would be contingent upon the 
City's ability to pay relative to the other co-defendants, Mr. 
Grand advises. Therefore, the cost of waiving insurance for 
the Halloween event is potentially very high. 

3. Mr. Grand advises that the Risk Manager's Office has 
negotiated an insurance package for a number of major 
events conducted in San Francisco. Through this insurance 
package, organizations can purchase insurance at less than 
the market rate. Ms. Kary Schulman of the Grants for the 
Arts Program advises that all of the participants in the 
package receive funding from Grants for the Arts. In 
addition, each organization that participates in an event, 
such as vendors and performers, are encouraged to be 
separately insured in order for the event's primary sponsor to 
participate in the insurance package. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



4. Major events sponsored by organizations that participate in 
the insurance package include the Saint Patrick's Day 
Parade, Carnival, Minsok, 24th Street Festival, the Columbus 
Day Parade, the Veteran's Day Parade, Cinco de Mayo, the 
Martin Luther King Celebration, and June Teenth. The 
Gay/Lesbian Freedom Day Parade and the Chinese New 
Year celebration were offered participation, but chose to 
provide their own insurance. The premiums range from less 
than $1,000 for the smaller activities that do not include a 
parade to over $6,000 for the major outdoor celebrations. 

5. Mr. Grand advises that the City may wish to consider 
assisting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to support the 
cost of insurance for the Halloween event, rather than 
waiving the insurance requirement. Ms. Schulman advises 
that the Grants for the Arts would not be an appropriate 
source of funds to pay such insurance costs, since the 
Halloween event is a fundraising event, and the Grants for 
Arts, as a City department, is prohibited from financing 
fundraising events. Ms. Schulman advises that supporting 
the insurance costs for one organization may also set a 
precedent for a variety of organizations to request support for 
such costs. 

6. The Finance Committee cannot forward this legislation to 
the Board of Supervisors until at least October 19, 1992, and 
the Annual Halloween street closing occurs on Saturday, 
October 31, 1992. Therefore, the Sisters of Perpetual 
Indulgence would most likely not have adequate time to 
locate insurance or raise adequate funds to pay for 
insurance. However, the Board of Supervisors may wish to 
consider waiving the insurance requirement for the 1992 
Halloween event, with the caveat that the event sponsor will 
be required to provide insurance in ensuing years. The event 
sponsor would therefore have one year to fundraise for 
insurance costs, for example, from Castro Street vendors 
who may also be subject to lawsuits and who would directly 
benefit from the provision of insurance. Alternatively, funds 
for insurance in 1993 could be set aside from any monies 
raised during the 1992 Halloween event. 

7. The Board of Supervisors has waived insurance and other 
fee requirements for the annual Halloween street closing in 
the Castro Street area every year since the event sponsors 
have applied for an official street closing, according to the 
Department of Parking and Traffic. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 h 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



8. According to Administrative Code Section 2.71, sponsors of 
street fairs are required to pay the fees noted above, and 
sponsors of athletic events which result in temporary street 
closures are required to entirely reimburse the City for costs 
associated with such street closures. Sgt. Tony Novello of the 
Police Department reports that a number of events that result 
in temporary street closings, such as parades and 
celebrations, cannot be classified as street fairs or athletic 
events. For these events, no fees or costs are recovered by the 
City except for the street closure permit filing fee. There were 
172 public events in 1991-92 for which street closure 
applications were filed. 

9. The Department of Parking and Traffic chairs ISCOTT, 
which is the organization responsible for determining the 
amount of fees owed for an individual event. According to 
Mr. Johnson, when a street application is approved, ISCOTT 
notifies the event sponsor in writing of the amount owed to 
each department pursuant to the Administrative Code. Each 
individual department is responsible to collect such fees. If 
the event sponsor does not pay the fees, and if the 
departments notify ISCOTT to that effect, the event sponsor 
cannot receive permit approval in ensuing years until all 
back fees are paid. 

10. For street fairs, but not for athletic events, the 
Administrative Code currently authorizes fees for: 

• the Department of Public Health, including permit, filing, 
and food booth fees; 

• the Fire Department; and 

• the Municipal Railway. 

The Administrative Code further treats street fairs and 
athletic events differently as follows: 

• For athletic events, full reimbursement for the 
Department of Public Works is authorized, but for street 
fairs, no. reimbursement for Department of Public Works 
costs is authorized. 

• For athletic events, full reimbursement for Police 
Department costs is authorized, but for street fairs, only 40 
percent of Police Department costs are reimbursable, up to 
$2,500. 

Finally, the Department of Parking and Traffic is not 
authorized to receive any cost reimbursement, aside from the 
$80 Street Closing Permit Filing fee. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



11. Sgt. Novello advises that the Police Department incurred 
the following costs for enforcement for Halloween festivities 
in 1991: 



Exotic Erotic Ball (October 26, 1991) 


$10,168 


City-wide Halloween Celebration 


2,313 


Polk Street 


7,499 


Castro Street 


67.881 


Total 


$87,861 



Recommendation: 



Lt. Novello advises that none of these events is classified as a 
street fair or an athletic event, which are the only two types of 
events for which Police costs may be recovered. Therefore, 
under the current fee schedule, the maximum amount of 
Police costs that could be recovered from the total $87,861 
incurred would be $2,500, or 40 percent of Police costs for the 
Castro Street celebration, with a maximum of $2,500. 

12. Additional revenues could be generated by the City if: (1) 
Fire Department, Public Health, and Municipal Railway fees 
were collected for athletic events; (2) full Police Department 
and Department of Public Works costs were collected for 
street fairs; and (3) reimbursements were collected for the 
traffic control and other costs of the Department of Parking 
and Traffic. In addition, the Fire Department, Public Health, 
and Municipal Railway fees as collected for street fairs may 
not represent full cost reimbursement, and additional 
revenue might be generated if the fee schedules were 
adjusted to compensate departments entirely for their costs 
for street closings. 

13. In June, 1992, legislation was introduced which would 
have permitted 100 percent cost recovery for all street 
closures for the Department of Parking and Traffic and the 
Police Department (File 97-92-30). Such cost recoveries were 
anticipated to generate $300,000 in revenue for the Police 
Department alone. This legislation was continued and has 
not been recalendared. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item 5 - File 121-92-10 

1. This item is a hearing to consider the Taxi Cab License Fees enacted by 
the Board of Supervisors in October 1991 (File 121-91-9; Ordinance 383-91). 

2. In October, 1991 the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to 
amend Part II Chapter VIII of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Police Code) by 
adding a new section, Section 2.27.1 that requires the payment of license fees to 
the Tax Collector for Motor Vehicle for Hire permits issued by the Police 
Department. The license fees included in Section 2.27.1 are as follows: 

License 
Fee 

Interurban Bus $240 

Jitney Bus Driver 50 

Jitney Bus Owner 240 

Limousine 240 

Motorized Rickshaw 240 

Driver Public Passenger Vehicle 25 

Driver Sightseeing Bus 240 

Taxicab 300 

Taxicab Radio Dispatch Services 300 

3. Prior to enactment of Section 2.27.1, the License Fee for a Taxicab was 
$96. Section 2.27.1 raised that fee by $204 from $96 to $300 (a 213 percent increase) 
but allowed a credit of $180 for taxi operators that agree to participate in the City's 
Paratransit Program to provide taxi services to handicapped and elderly persons. 

4. The Tax Collector reports that there were 811 taxicabs licensed in San 
Francisco in 1991-92 of which 519 taxicabs participated in the City's Paratransit 
Program and 292 did not participate. The Tax Collector received a total of $298,370 
for all Section 2.27.1 license fees in 1991-92, including $62,280 for taxicabs 
participating in the City's Paratransit Program and $87,600 for other taxicabs. 

5. According to Ms. Annette Williams of the City's Paratransit Program, 
the City paid a total of approximately $7.2 million, including approximately $2.7 
million from the General Fund, for paratransit service rides provided by taxicabs, 
wheelchair lift vans and group vans in 1991-92. Approximately 7,000 clients per 
month of the City's Paratransit Program received rides in taxicabs. The taxicab 
rides had a total value of approximately $3.15 million in 1991-92. The taxicab 
companies were paid approximately $2.9 million after deduction of the eight 
percent discount (approximately $250,000) given by the taxicab companies on rides 
to clients of the City's Paratransit Program. 



HOARD OF SUI'KKVISQKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item 6 - File 65-92-13 

Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee calendar of October 
7, 1992. The Finance Committee has specifically requested an explanation 
of the reasons for the Recreation and Park Commission's recommendation 
to approve a ten year lease (five years and a five year renewal option) and 
additional information as to why the Commission has made the policy 
decision to award a lease at less than market value. (The Director of 
Property estimates that this proposed lease is below market by 
approximately $25,000 annually, as discussed in this report.) 

According to Mr. Phil Arnold, Deputy General Manager of Recreation and 
Park, the ten year lease agreement was recommended at the request of the 
proposed lessee so that Theatre Bay Area (TBA) would be better able to 
attract grant funds and support from other sources to make certain 
leasehold improvements to the premises. A shorter term lease would 
inhibit their ability to raise such funds, according to TBA. 

In response to the second question by the Committee, Mr. Arnold reiterated 
the Commission's policy decision to lease the premises at below market 
rent due to the long-standing opposition to Recreation and Park's proposals 
to operate or lease to commercial, for-profit enterprises by the Union Square 
Merchant's Association. 

Department: Recreation and Park Department 

Item: The proposed ordinance would approve a lease between the 

Recreation and Park Department with Theatre Bay Area 
(TBA) to operate a discount ticket booth selling theatre tickets 
at Union Square Garage. 

Location: The ticket booth is located in the unused Stockton Street 

entrance to the Union Square Garage. 



No.ofSq.Ftand 
Rent per Month: 



Annual Rent: 
Term of Lease: 
Description: 



The proposed monthly rent is $105 for 188 square feet or 
approximately $0.56 per square foot or $6.72 per year. 

$1,260 plus five percent of net revenues over $160,000. 

Five years with one five year option. 

The ticket booth at Union Square has been operated since 1982 
by Performing Arts Services, which has done business under 
the name of STBS. STBS has had no lease with the Recreation 
and Park Department but has operated under a month to 
month revocable permit. STBS is paying an annual rental of 
$1,250 per year or approximately $104 per month. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 



The services offered by STBS and to be offered by TBA include 
selling day-of-the-performance theater tickets at half price to 
the public on a first come, first served basis; selling advance 
tickets for small non-profit theater companies (with a budget 
under $500,000); and selling full priced tickets as a BASS 
ticket outlet. STBS provides a service to both the theater 
community by selling otherwise unsold tickets and to the 
public by selling tickets at half price. 

According to the Recreation and Park Department, STBS has 
always been a marginal operation and filed for bankruptcy on 
January 24, 1991. While STBS is still currently operating the 
ticket booth, both STBS and the Recreation and Park 
Department have been seeking another operator for the ticket 
booth. Because the Recreation and Park Department has not 
been able to rent space in Union Square to for-profit operators 
(see Comment 2 below), a non-profit operator for the ticket 
booth was sought. Because STBS had previously initiated 
discussions with TBA and because the Recreation and Park 
Department determined that TBA was a reputable 
organization, the Recreation and Park Department has 
proposed that the Union Square space occupied by STBS be 
leased to TBA. 



Comments: 



TBA was founded in 1975 by a group of theater owners 
interested in sharing information and resources and is the 
largest theater service organization in North America. The 
proposed lease represents the first time TBA has attempted to 
operate a ticket booth operation. 

In addition to the services noted above, TBA would provide 
other benefits to the Recreation and Park Department. TBA 
would provide discount memberships to 50 individual 
members of the Recreation and Park Department's Young 
People's Teen Musical Theater as well giving free 
membership to the Theater as an organization. Additionally, 
TBA has agreed to stock, sell, and distribute information and 
tickets to Recreation and Park Department attractions or 
activities at no cost. 

1. TBA would pay $1,260 in annual rent which is $10 higher 
than the annual rent of $1,250 that STBS is currently paying. 
According to Ms. Robin Burgstahler of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the $160,000 base level revenues, above 
which TBA would pay five percent of their net revenues, 
represent the maximum annual revenues that STBS was 
able to achieve. Ms. Burgstahler adds that the Recreation and 
Park Department is hopeful that TBA will be able to manage 
the ticket sale concession in a more successful manner and 
that revenues will increase and result in the City receiving 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

higher rent for the property (since the City would receive five 
percent of net revenues). Additionally, the five year lease 
option, if exercised, would provide for higher negotiated 
payments of between three and ten percent of gross revenues. 

2. Ms. Burgstahler reports that the Recreation and Park 
Department has previously sought to seek commercial 
tenants who would pay market rates for another space at 
Union Square but withdrew its proposal because of strong 
opposition from downtown merchants. 

3. Estimates prepared by the Real Estate Department for the 
Recreation and Park Department indicate that market rate 
rental rates for Union Square would be $7.50 per square foot 
per month (or $90 per square foot per year) plus six percent of 
gross revenues. Based on an estimate of $160,000 in annual 
gross revenues, the annual payment to the City would be 
$26,520 ($16,920 in rental payments and $9,600 based on gross 
revenues). This is $25,260 more than the $1,260 proposed 
lease with TBA. 

Recommendation; Because the proposed lease with TBA represents less than 
the fair market value for the Recreation and Park 
Department space at Union Square, approval of the proposed 
lease is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 14, 1992 

Item 7 - File 51-92-2 

Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting on October 
7, 1992. 

The proposed item transmits the claims of various City employees for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 

Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The Controller 
recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted to the 
Controller, and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the 
Controller that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount 
certified for payment is fair and reasonable. 

Comments 

1. The proposed eleven employee claims are for the period April, May and 
June, 1992. 

2. As of the writing of this report Mr. John Madden of the Controller's 
Office advises that the Department has not completed it's report on the 
recommended reimbursements for the eleven employee claims. Mr. Madden 
advises that the report will be ready for presentation at the Finance Committee 
Meeting on October 14, 1992. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 

HOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



if 

#3 ^ . DOCUMFNT.q hrpt. 

', ^ CALENDAR *ti ^T«U OCT 2 6 1992 



/^' 



A. MEETING OF SAN FRANCISCO 



C- ^ FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WEDNESDAY/OCTOBER 21, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN - ITEMS 3, 4 AND 6 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

(a) File 94-92-10 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission/Bureau of Energy Conservation to apply for, accept and 
expend funds of $50,000 from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Urban 
Consortium for energy management activities; ratification of action previously 
taken. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 2, after "funds", by adding "in the amount 
of $50,000, which includes indirect costs of $15,100 based on 50 
percent of personnel costs plus 2 percent of operating expenses". 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission/Bureau of Energy Conservation to apply for, 
accept and expend funds in the amount of $50,000, which includes 
indirect costs of $15,100 based on 50 percent of personnel costs 
plus 2 percent of operating expenses, from the U.S. Department of 
Energy and the Urban Consortium for energy management 
activities; ratification of action previously taken." 

(b) File 146-92-2.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, in the amount of $9,500, for the CHIRN Project 
Grant, (Alan Watahara, PhD, consultant). (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Release of $9,500 recommended. Filed. 



(c) File 133-92-2.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Chief Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in an amount 
totalling $15,000, for used oil recycling grant, contractors Grand Auto $6,000 
and S.F. Community Recyclers $4,000; and Clean Water Action $5,000 to 
provide non-toxic alternatives displays at street fairs. (Clean Water Action) 
(CAO/Solid Waste Management Program) 

ACTION: Release of $15,000 recommended. Filed. 

(d) File 172-92-14 . [Agreement - Federal Transit Administration] Resolution 
authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to execute a full funding grant 
agreement with the Federal Transit Administration for the Municipal Railway 
Metro Turnback Project. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 188-92-1 . Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts with 
Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the 
purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy water. (Supervisor Migden) 

(Cont'd from 10/7/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to November 4, 1992, meeting. 

3. File 115-92-12 . [Illegal Unit Amnesty] Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter II of the 
San Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning) by adding Section 207.3 to establish a 
24-month amnesty period within which one dwelling unit in addition to those 
permitted in any RH-2, RH-3, RM, RC, NC, C or mixed use zoning district (which 
unit was constructed prior to January 1, 1992 without benefit of permit) may be 
legalized, by amending Section 161 to exempt legalized units from the parking 
requirements, and by adding Section 369 to impose a registration penalty; amending 
Article 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Residential Rent Stabilization 
and Arbitration Ordinance) by amending Section 37.2 to make all legalized units 
subject to Rent Board jurisdiction; amending Part II, Chapter XII of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Housing Code) by amending Section 503 to provide that 
ceiling heights for legalized units are only required to meet the minimum 
requirements mandated by State Law; amending Part II, Chapter I of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Building Code) by adding Section 109 to allow for 
exemptions from certain code requirements, amending Section 202 to provide that it 
a density violation is discovered after the expiration of the amnesty period the 
property owner shall be liable for the full costs incurred by the City in detecting and 
abating the violation, and amending Section 332.3 to exempt units legalized during 
the amnesty period from payment of the work without permit investigation fee; 
adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 



4. File 185-92-4 . [Children's Services Plan] Resolution urging the Mayor to utilize the 
1992/93 Children's Services Plan ("CSP") as the foundation for the development of 
the 1993/94 CSP and to continue funding, during the next fiscal year, for those 
community based organizations selected to provide services identified in the 1992/93 
CSP. (Supervisor Achtenberg) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

5. File 146-92-52.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a continuation grant of $2,102,567, 
which includes in indirect costs of $241,709 based on twenty percent of personnel 
costs, from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 
Control, to continue funding AIDS Surveillance Project; companion measure to File 
146-92-52.1. (Department of Public Health) 

(Cont'd from 10/14/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept 
and expend a continuation grant of $2,102,567, which includes in indirect 
costs of $241,709 based on twenty percent of personnel costs, from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 
to continue funding AIDS Surveillance Project; placing $11,707 on 
reserve." 

6. File 97-92-59 . [Public Health Contracts] Ordinance amending Administrative Code 
by adding Section 19A.31 to permit the Department of Public Health to enter into 
indemnification agreements with the California Family Planning Council enabling 
the Department of Public Health to participate in family planning services. 
(Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) New title: "Amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 19A.31 to permit the Department of Public 
Health to enter into indemnification agreements with the California 
Family Planning Council enabling the Department of Public Health to 
participate in family planning services; effective retroactive to October 
1, 1992." 

7. File 51-92-2. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments, for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

(Cont'd from 10/14/92) 

April, May, June 1992 

ACTION: Hearing held. Resolution prepared in and reported out of Committee 

entitled: "Authorizing reimbursement for costs of personal property of 
City and County employees damaged or stolen in line of duty." 
Recommended. 

8. File 47-92-6.1 . [Garage Lease Documents] Ordinance approving and adopting St. 
Mary's Square garage legal documents and authorization for management 
agreement. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



9. File 127-92-9 . [Board of Permit Appeals Fees] Ordinance amending Part HI of the 
Municipal Code, by amending Section 8 thereof, to increase specified Board of 
Permit Appeals filing fees. (Board of Permit Appeals) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

10. File 156-92-4 . [Federal Funding] Resolution approving a 1992-93 Expenditure Plan 
for refugee employment and training funds and authorizing the President of the 
Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc., to sign, enter into, and execute State 
contract. (Private Industry Council) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Approving a 1992-93 Expenditure Plan for refugee employment and 
training funds; authorizing, retroactively, the President of the Private 
Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc., to sign, enter into, and execute 
State contract; and authorizing the Private Industry Council to accept 
and expend refugee employment and training funds in the amount of 
$852,781 from the California Department of Social Services." 



0.95* 



CITY AND COUNTY 



BO. 




(Public Library, 'Documents (Dcpt. 
WPB{: Qcrry^ptfi 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



October 19, 1992 



TO: 



Finance Committee 



FROM: / Bu<lget Analyst (\^to^^t^d^ Ni 

SUBJECT: 'OcitoBer 21, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item la - File 94-92-10 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

OCT 2 1992 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Grant: 

Grant Period: 
Grant Program: 
Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Bureau of Energy Conservation 

Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Commission, 
Bureau of Energy Conservation to apply for, accept and 
expend Federal grant funds for energy management 
activities and ratification of action previously taken. 

$50,000 

U.S. Department of Energy and the Urban Consortium for 
Technology Initiatives. 

November 1, 1992 through December 31, 1993 

Intervention Strategies for Energy Efficient Buildings 

The Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives is 
composed of the 45 largest cities and urban counties by 
population in the United States. The Consortium provides a 
forum to (1) define urban problems common to its respective 
member governments and (2) develop, apply and transfer 
technologies and innovative management techniques to 
address those problems. The Consortium's work is carried 
out through various task forces, one of which is the Energy 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Project Budget 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 



Task Force. The PUC Bureau of Energy Conservation is the 
City's representative to this Task Force. The members of this 
Task Force design annual work programs for applied 
research and technology to improve the mix and efficiency of 
energy use in both local government operations and the 
community as a whole. The programs are funded by the U. S. 
Department of Energy through an annual grant made 
available to the Task Force. 

The proposed $50,000 grant would be used to support existing 
Bureau of Energy Conservation municipal energy retrofit 
work through the development of intervention strategies. 
These strategies will influence municipal policy makers, 
designers, building operators and other decision makers to 
construct and maintain buildings to be more energy efficient. 

A range of different types of intervention is required at the 
different stages of a building's life time including 1) 
administrative or policy change to provide for the additional 
incremental costs of energy efficient design and construction, 
2) specialized technical advice and support for building 
architects and design engineers, and 3) training on energy 
efficient equipment operation for facility maintenance staff. 
Only through such a program can energy efficiency savings 
be realized that may then be used to provide financial support 
to other public services. 

Personnel 

Project Manager (approximately 0.6 FTE) $24,000 

Fringe Benefits 6.000 

Subtotal $30,000 

Operating Expenses 

Travel $3,200 

Materials and Supplies 300 

Printing 500 

Technical Meetings 800 

Postage 100 

Subtotal 4,900 

Indirect Costs 15.100 

Total $50,000 

None 

$15,100 (50 percent of personnel costs plus two percent of 
operating expenses) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Comments: 1. The Grant Application Summary, as prepared by the PUC, 

for this Federal grant is attached. As reflected in the 
attachment, the application due date was July 31, 1992. The 
PUC reports that the application for this Federal grant has 
already been submitted. The proposed legislation includes 
language in both the body and title stating that the resolution 
would approve "ratification of action previously taken." 

2. A Disability Checklist is in the file. 

3. The proposed resolution would authorize $15,100 for 
indirect costs based on 50 percent of personnel costs plus two 
percent of operating costs. Although the body of the proposed 
resolution refers to the $15,100 for indirect costs, the title of 
the proposed resolution should be amended to reflect the 
$15,100 for indirect costs. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title of the proposed resolution to refer to the 
inclusion of $15,100 for indirect costs. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



riic i'^-"- Aitacnmenc 

Fage 1 of 2 

Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
reso lut ion : 

Department: PUC/Bureau of Energy Conservation 

Contact Person: John F, Deakin or Doug Johnson Telephone: (415)864-691 5 
Project Title: Intervention Strategies for Energy Efficient Buildings 
Grant Source: Energy Task Force of the Urban Consortium 

Proposed $&£>? / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

The Bureau's project proposal for this year of Energy Task 
Force funding, is to support existing Bureau municipal energy 
retrofit work through the development of intervention 
strategies that will influence municipal policy makers, 
designers, building operators and other decision makers to 
create and maintain buildings that will perform efficiently 
throughout their lifespans. 

A range of different types of intervention is required at the 
different stages of a facility's life time; from administrative 
or policy change to provide for the additional incremental 
costs of energy efficient design and construction; through 
specialized technical advice and support for building 
architects and design engineers; through to training on energy 
efficient equipment operation for facility maintenance staff. 
Only through such a program can we hope to capture the energy 
efficiency $ savings that may then be used to provide much 
needed financial support to other presently underfunded public 
services . 

Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $50,000 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $50 ,000 



Required Matching Funds: in-kind associated with existing ongoing projec ts 

acceptable 
Number of Positions Created and Funded: One FTE approx. 

Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: None 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? N/A 



t\ L LdCiuiieii u 



Page I ~. ~ -* — Pi- 

page 2 of 2 



Term of Grant: November 1992 - December 1993 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: June 1992 
Application Due Date: July 31, 1992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 



The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force 

The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force (UCETF) has the formal mission to develop, apply and 
transfer and commercialize practical technologies and advanced management techniques that aid 
effective energy management in America's major cities and urban counties. The participants in 
UCETF programs endeavor to improve the mix and efficiency of energy use both in local 
government operations and for the community as a whole. 

The program concentrates on three general objectives as defined by the Urban Consortium 
membership: 

• Definition of urban energy problem(s) — identifying critical and common urban needs 
in energy management and technology that can be addressed through projects led by city or 
county staff; 

• Support for problem resolution -- developing and adapting innovative technology and 
advanced management practices that enhance local staff capabilities, improve financial 
management, and increase effective private/public cooperation; and 

• Transfer and/or commercialization of successful results « evaluating results to 
generalize, combine and consolidate those results for transfer, commerciahzanon and 
replication in other cities and counties. 

These objectives guide the program's strategic direction and funding priorities. Project proposals 
will be selected for the 1993 program through an extensive peer review process that will assure 
consistency with these objectives. 




Department Head Approval 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item lb -File 146-92-2.2 



Department: 

Item: 
Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Community Public Health Services (CPHS) 

Request to release reserved funds 

$9,500 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

Child Health Initiative for Immigrant/Refugee Newcomers 
(CHIRN) 

In February of 1992, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
DPH to accept and expend a $600,000 grant to fund a new 
program to address the lack of health care access for 
immigrant or refugee children, also known as "newcomer" 
children. CHIRN involves a collaborative effort of DPH, the 
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), and the 
Department of Social Services (DSS). The Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation is supporting pilot projects in eight 
cities for restructuring the financing and delivery of publicly 
funded health care service for children. The Board of 
Supervisors placed $69,400 on reserve pending identification 
of contractors. This is a request to release $9,500 of the $69,400 
on reserve for an Epidemiologist to plan and direct the 
implementation of survey instruments and procedures to 
collect health data concerning immigrant/refugee children 
in San Francisco. 

DPH has selected Alan Watahara, PhD for the proposed 
project for 118.75 hours at $80 per hour. Because the contract 
amount is relatively low, the department did not issue a 
Request for Proposals (RFP), but instead decided to sole 
source the contract with Dr. Watahara based on 
recommendations from other epidemiologists. Dr. Watahara 
has received the Civil Service Commission's preliminary 
approval pending the release of the reserved funds. 

Recommendation: Release the requested $9,500 in reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item lc -File 133-92-2.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Request to release reserved funds for a used oil recycling 
grant and to provide non-toxic alternative displays at street 
fairs. 

$15,000 

Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

During its review of the Solid Waste Management Program's 
FY 1992-93 budget, the Board of Supervisors placed $668,850 
for professional services on reserve pending information 
regarding identification of the service providers, estimated 
hours of service, hourly rates and MBE/WBE status. This is a 
request to release $15,000 of the $668,850 placed on reserve. 

The Department reports that $10,000 would fund two oil 
recycling grants. Specifically, the Solid Waste Management 
Program would give $6,000 to Grand Auto, a private retail 
automotive parts company, and $4,000 to S.F. Community 
Recyclers, a local nonprofit organization, to accept used 
motor oil from San Francisco residents free of charge at 
various locations in the Mission, Marina, China Basin and 
Ingleside Districts. Grand Auto and S.F. Community 
Recyclers would receive the used oil at no charge and pay for 
a recycling company to pick up the used oil to recycle for 
reuse. According to Ms. Maria Trapalis of the Solid Waste 
Management Program, Grand Auto would not make a profit 
on the used oil. In fact, Ms. Trapalis advises that Grand Auto 
would most likely lose money because Grand Auto would 
have to pay a recycling company to pick up the used oil. The 
Solid Waste Management Program sent Request for 
Proposals to 600 organizations and these two organizations 
were the only respondents. Neither organization is a 
MBE/WBE. 

The remaining $5,000 would fund a grant for Clean Water 
Action, a local non-profit organization, to provide displays of 
non-toxic alternatives for household products at street fairs. 
In addition, the $5,000 grant would fund a translation of a 
non-toxic alternatives chart into Chinese. 



Recommendation: Release the requested $15,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item Id -File 172-92-14 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Commission 

(PUC) to execute a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) 
with the Federal Transit Administration for the Municipal 
Railway (MUNI) Metro Turnback Project. 

Description: The proposed agreement would establish $131,402,500 as the 

maximum Federal contribution to the Metro Turnback 
Project. The total estimated cost for the project is 
$202,332,364 (attachment). The difference of $70,929,864 
($202,332,384 less $131,402,500) would be contributed from 
local and regional funding resources, as follows: 

State Transit Capital Improvement $22,431,900 

State Rail Bonds (Propositions 108 and 116) 14,807,282 
Bridge Tolls (AB 664 and Regional Measure 1) 8,398,900 
S. F. Municipal Railway Improvement 

Corp. (SFMRIC) (1) 3,357,500 

Hetch Hetchy Capital Reserves (2) 269,000 

Transit Impact Development Fee (3) 6,250,000 

Transportation Sales Tax 15.415.282 

Total Local and Regional Funds $70,929,864 

(1) Approved by SFMRIC on March 1, 1989. Approved by 
Board of Supervisors as part of local match pool of funds on 
January 15, 1992 (File 94-91-9). 

(2) PUC and Board of Supervisors approvals to transfer funds 
pending. 

(3) Approved by PUC on July 28, 1992. Approved by Board of 
Supervisors as part of local match pool of funds on September 
8, 1992 (File 94-92-7). 

PUC is presently undertaking a process to pre-qualify bidders 
for the overall construction of the project, which is expected to 
total approximately $140,000,000. In order to certify the 
contract, the City Controller has requested the PUC to seek 
assurances that funds will be available to fulfill the City's 
obligations under the contract. The subject agreement 
between PUC and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
would assure that the Federal government would contribute 
its share of $131,402,500 toward the total anticipated 
$140,000,000 construction contract and other related costs for 
the MUNI Metro Turnaround Project. The remaining funds, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

which are the local and regional match, have either been 
approved or assured through negotiations with the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC has 
established the MUNI Metro Turnback Project as the San 
Francisco Bay Region's top ranked priority capital 
improvement project for available Federal and local funding 
under its jurisdiction. 

The proposed resolution would designate the PUC General 
Manager, Municipal Railway General Manager, the PUC's 
Utilities Engineering Manager and PUC Director of Finance 
to execute the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with 
the Federal government. Further, if the final FFGA requires 
changes to the current draft, the PUC will report back to the 
Board of Supervisors for approval of the subject agreement. 

Comments: 1. The MUNI Metro Turnback Project would provide for an 

improved underground train switching and storage facility 
east of the existing Embarcadero Station at the foot of Market 
Street, and an extension of the subway to the surface at 
Folsom Street where the trackway will connect with the 
MUNI Metro Extension project that will provide Metro 
service to the CalTrain depot at Fourth and Townsend Streets 
and to Mission Bay. 

2. This project is intended to: 

• Accommodate rush hour ridership growth from 11,800 to 
13,400 passengers by the year 2007. 

• Increase subway train capacity from 20 to 30 trains per 
hour. 

• Decrease headways from 3 to 2 minutes (1 minute with 
future Automatic Train Control System). 

• Improve overall operational efficiency and reliability of the 
Metro System. 

• Extend Metro Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) service to 
redevelopment areas such as Hills Plaza, South Beach, 
China Basin and Mission Bay. 

• Provide regional rail transit connecting service between the 
CalTrain depot at Fourth Street and BART at the 
Embarcadero Station. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



3. Mr. Fred Howell of PUC advises that the Federal 
government generally requires local recipients to set aside 
from 5 to 10 percent cash reserves for major transit 
construction projects such as the MUNI Metro Turnback 
Project. With the approval of the subject agreement, the City- 
forgoes the necessity to reserve up to $20.2 million (10 percent 
x $202,332,384) for the subject project. 

4. Prior legislation for the MUNI Metro Turnback Project 
has reserved Federal and local match funds totaling 
$87,767,825 for professional services ($3,750,000) and 
construction contracts ($84,017,825) as follows: 

MUNI Metro Turnback Project Funds on Reserve 



Board of Supervisors 
File Legislation 



Professional 
Services 



Construction 
Contracts 



94-90-1 $2,000,000 

94-91-7 250,000 

94-91-9 1,500,000 
94-92-3 
94-92-6 

94-92-7 = 

Total Reserved Funds $3,750,000 



$5,600,000 
33,600,000 
9,345,825 
1,672,000 
33.800.000 
$84,017,825* 



* PUC will apply for an additional $56,000,000 in Federal FTA 
and local match funds for construction contracts in FYs 1993, 
1994 and 1995 which would be assured with the approval of 
the subject resolution. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Attachment 







< ; 


^, 




- 3 : 














< 






b 




y < ; 
























< : 






: 


3 










< ; 


> 










O • 


to 

< 










10 '. 






a : 












: 






>- ; 












v : 






> : 












: 






2 ; 






n : 






2 m 






uj > : 






0. u. : 













uj n : 






a e> : 






a: cn i 






< : 






|t| 






n : 






2 : 






a - 1 : 






2 => • 






UJ > • 






a. "- : 










O 






n 






2 
-J 


x „ : 

S? j 




O" 


"" : 




1- 


c ? 




> 


x>- : 
1- : 










3 














2 - ■ 




cr 







< 


P 2 i 




>- 


< Q : 

a: : 






O < ■ 




§5 


:J5 j 




"S <o 


< "* • 






















E < 













O 




>- 






J 


» 2 








-5 


= Q 




C 


= > 






.2 < 


: : 
a: ! 


a 


3 £ 




3 i- 


■ 3 • 
C : 

: m '• 


2 


S2 






: : 







: 2 : 




% "> 


: ^ : 




J 


; U. ! 


c 


"- 2 


i : 




c 3 


: 2 • 


£ 


10 ►- 


: < : 


c 


Si 


: 5 j 
: < : 


E 


2 £ 


2 : 


C 


a 5 


: >- 


< 


< < 

Q Z 


: u 




< "j 


: O 


cv 

O 




! £ 



OvinNuinO'- n O N1 " Nnoo "-' 10 ' , ' "O n ' ,, on d 



00000000000000000 



ojooooinootnoocooritfjLn 
i-oooooooooajoimco-c-iNi 

OOO^TU)«-TyTT — O^QDr^mO — 



OOOOO 



o>-inot-OLO 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOfMOOO 

~ ->->» o «» — ->-»-» — «>•■> — -» c c =—»«> -> 

O O O cn 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

->«>00*»«>-«»00-«>«>-»>-''»«»0->-"»-»'«»'>»0 



• o o 
o" o" o" o' 



000000 o 

"> *> ~> -» — -> o 



iOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
00-«*'*»-«>'»0*»^00000-«-'«>-->^00'*00^0-«>-*> 
O^lD O COOOTO O as to O O 

10 cn m* in o O ai" o* o co" r-~ cn d 

cn r^ __ o- a OO Q4D _... o c> -to © o 

IOO «- •- O T O CM U30DCMO 



1 n m 

o r> r> 

O O O ° ^ "^ 

S 32 >- >-> 

099U.U.U. 

< < < 

uou 



C Q. <V Q. ^ 
O T <"> CD 



- 5 = 000^05^"^ 

O O => — " 



rsl < 

55 



52 



V >- > 2 2 
< < < 1- o 

55$tuP 

I UJ UJ UJ 1- < 

1 a g 9 < Jj 

i 3 3 3 £ c 

1 o 00 2° 

I Q Q Q UJ U) 

: x x x 2 < 



o o o ° o 



2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

>>>>>>> 

OOOOOOOo 

£££££££2 

« _l -J _! _1 _1 _1 O 



cr e 



cc 



5 < 



- 5 

a < 
o U 



00 o o owr: 

2 2 2 2 2 2 < 

O O O O O O "• 

O O O O O U ^ 

co tn co to co to < 



a. 0- a. o_ Q_ a. * 

<<<<<<toto 

OOOCJOUOQ 



(E cc 2 

3 3 i 

to CO > 

< < o 

52£ 

_i _i 2 

< < - 

^T 2 2 > 

0< 

"5 55 



w Q. o. a. 
UJ < < < 
u. O U O 



_ .. to to to -. 
0222Z222-; 

Jcceo:cc5:<<" 



5 < < < < < 



< < < < y y y 



"J £ X X X 
S 5 < < < 

_, O to to to 

< d ^! ^ !tl 
t > < < < 

— Q. uj CO to t/j 

<5° 22z 

c u »- o o o 

U w - = c c 

^ - w o p o 

2 -*- _ S. 5. o. 
j I n n 01 in 
5<J2222 



□ aajili-t-t- 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 2 -File 188-92-1 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
October 7, 1992. 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Hetch Hetchy 

Item: Hearing to consider the fiscal impact of the 1987 contracts 

with Pacific Gas and Electric and the Modesto and Turlock 
Irrigation Districts for the purchase and sale of Hetch Hetchy 
hydroelectric power. 

Description: On February 29, 1988, the Board of Supervisors passed 

Ordinance 87-88 (File 446-87-4.1) which approved long term 
agreements between Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts (MID & TID) and the City and County of San 
Francisco. The terms of the agreements are from April 1988 
to June 2015 or 27 years and three months. Under these long 
term agreements, the City has agreed to the delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power to the Districts including Class 1 
loads of the MID & TID (power for irrigation pumping and 
District municipal purposes) and Class 3 loads (energy re- 
sold by the MID and TID to its customers). 

Hetch Hetchy is obligated to sell Class 1 power to the MID and 
TID at cost because of the prior water and hydroelectric 
power entitlement identified in the Raker Act. Hetch Hetchy 
sells Class 3 power to the MED and TID at a higher negotiated 
rate and in accordance with subject agreements. Under the 
agreements, Hetch Hetchy must provide hydroelectric power 
demanded by the Districts, above the City's Municipal 
requirements, up to Hetch Hetchy's "Project Dependable 
Capacity" (a calculated reliable generation capacity of Hetch 
Hetchy's hydroelectric generating facilities) at contractually 
specified rates, regardless of whether Hetch Hetchy is 
actually generating sufficient power or must purchase 
additional power from PG&E. Power not used for Class 1 
purposes is deemed to be Class 3 power and is paid for at the 
higher rate. Such rates for Class 3 power purchased from 
Hetch Hetchy by the Districts are adjusted annually based on 
regression equations that "smooth" PG&E rate variations 
over the previous five years. 

The City also has a 27 year and three month contract (April 
1988 to June 2015) with Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
(PG&E) for services and supplemental power purchase on an 
"if and as needed" basis. The prices for supplemental power 
purchases under the contract are at rates subject to 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



renegotiation periodically. Actual prices vary depending on 
scheduling of power purchase and "fuel cost adjustment" 
factors which increase or decrease PG&E prices depending 
on short term variations in the cost of fuels used in 
generating PG&E power. 

The contract specifies that Hetch Hetchy will receive firming 
services from PG&E (fixed charges for capacity reserves 
whether actually used or not by Hetch Hetchy) necessary to 
support Hetch Hetchy's "Project Dependable Capacity". 
These "firming services" therefore provide guaranteed power 
for Hetch Hetchy customers including the City's municipal 
requirements and the Districts. 



Comments: 1. Because the Districts' Class 3 rates are adjusted based on 

five-year trends in PG&E rates and the City must 
occasionally purchase power at PG&E rates subject to 
frequent short term adjustments, there have been instances 
when the City must purchase supplemental power for the 
Districts at higher rates than such supplemental power is 
sold at Class 3 rates. 

The Attachment to this report displays monthly power sales 
data to the Districts since April, 1988. These data were 
provided by Hetch Hetchy at the request of the Budget 
Analyst. The table illustrates that over the 51 month period 
between April 1988 and June 1992, the City has required 
supplemental power for sales to the Districts during 23 
months. In nine of those months, supplemental power has 
been sold to the Districts at a loss. Over the total 51 months, 
Hetch Hetchy reports that the net revenue benefit of selling 
purchased, supplemental power to the Districts is 
approximately $1.1 million based on $15 million in 
supplemental sales. 

According to Mr. Lawrence Klein, Deputy General Manager 
of Hetch Hetchy, monthly losses due to sales of supplemental 
power would not have occurred had not the drought resulted 
in severely curtailed Hetch Hetchy generation necessitating 
purchase of PG&E power to support both Class 1 and Class 3 
power sales to the Districts. 

The data shown in the Attachment to this report is 
summarized below. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



kW-Hrs 


$/kw-Hrs 


Revenues 
(Expenditures^ 


1,108,874,000 


$0.00808 


$8,959,132 


2.345.951.132 


$0.03401 


$79,776,114 


3,454,825,132 


$0.02568 


$88,735,246 


432,641,240 


$0.03214 


($13,905,576) 




$0.03474 


$15,028,226 

$1,122,650 

($19,061,250) 



Summary of Hetch Hetchy Power Sales to Districts 
April 1988 to June 1992 



Districts, Total Class-1 Firm Energy 

Districts, Total Class-3 Firm Energy 

Total Class 1 and Class 3 Firm Energy 

What SF paid PG&E for supplemental 
power to be sold to the Districts 

What SF charged Turlock & Modesto for 
Power purchased from PG&E 

San Francisco's net benefit/(cost) for 
supplemental power purchased from PG&E 

Total Capacity Reserve Payments to 
PG&E* 

* Capacity reserve payments also include payments to provide "firming" services for 
City's Municipal requirements as well as for Modesto/Turlock Irrigation Districts 



2. Hetch Hetchy reports that their costs of capacity reserves 
purchased from PG&E have resulted in a savings over the 
term of the agreements. Hetch Hetchy's monthly cost to 
PG&E for a 59,800 kilowatt capacity reserve at a wholesale 
price of $6.25 per kilowatt is $373,750 or approximately $4.5 
million annually. Without such capacity reserve services 
from PG&E, purchased power and energy would be at a 
higher cost of $16,499 to $17,678 per kilowatt from PG&E 
according to Hetch Hetchy. 

According to Mr. Klein, this is a valid comparison since 
Hetch Hetchy is precluded from purchasing capacity reserve 
elsewhere without five years notice to PG&E by the agreement 
with PG&E, and therefore would have had to pay PG&E rates 
in that period. 

The Budget Analyst notes however, that neither the capacity 
reserve costs nor the charges for purchased power would be 
needed if it were not for the provisions of the agreements with 
MID and TID. 



BOAUD OF SlTPKKVlSOILS 

Budget Analyst 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



3. The Budget Analyst further notes that the cost of PG&E 
provision of adequate reserve power to meet Modesto and 
Turlock Irrigation District demands, up to Hetch Hetchy's 
"Project Dependable Capacity", would be totally avoidable 
except for the fact that the provisions of the 1988 agreements 
with the Districts require Hetch Hetchy to meet such 
demands and that the demands can only be met through the 
agreement between Hetch Hetchy and PG&E. 

Therefore, if these agreements had not been approved in their 
present form, Hetch Hetchy would not have incurred the 
existing capacity reserve costs or incremental costs for 
purchased power to meet the demands of the Districts for 
Class 3 power. 

If Hetch Hetchy could sell any available hydroelectric power 
at wholesale rates at least equivalent to rates paid by the 
Districts for Class 3 power purchases, then Hetch Hetchy 
would not incur capacity reserve charges of $19.0 million or 
net revenues, according to Hetch Hetchy's figures, of $1.1 
million, for purchased power over a 51 month period as it has 
since April, 1988. 

Mr. Klein responds however, that without the firm power 
supply provided by the PG&E agreement, the City would not 
have realized equivalent revenue, from either MID, TID or 
any other long term customer, as has been received from the 
Districts for Class 3 power. In addition, the City would 
require some firming services to assure adequate power for 
the City's municipal load. 

4. Therefore, the question of whether the long term power 
sales agreements with the Districts is in the best interests of 
the City can only be answered through an investigation of the 
City's alternatives for the sale of hydroelectric power now 
provided to the Districts for Class 3 energy consumption 
(power purchased by the Districts and re-sold to their 
customers, over and above the Districts' municipal and 
irrigation pumping needs). 

The Budget Analyst has previously requested information 
from Hetch Hetchy on alternative market opportunities for 
sale of hydroelectric power and energy. As of the writing of 
this report, we are informed that the Hetch Hetchy General 
Manager will provide such information to the Finance 
Committee at its October 21, 1992 hearing on this matter. 

5. Other provisions of the current long term agreements 
between the City and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation 
Districts include: 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



• The full cost of the support charge for PG&E firming 
services, less $700,000 paid by the Districts as part of their 
Class 1 rates, must be paid by Hetch Hetchy. Such 
services are in effect a guarantee by PG&E to provide 
sufficient capacity reserves to support the level of power 
and energy to be provided by Hetch Hetchy. 

• The City agrees to meet priorities for delivery of Hetch 
Hetchy hydroelectric power, as follows: 

- City municipal loads; 

- Class 1 loads of the Districts per requirement of 

Raker Act; 

- Class 3 power to the Districts (energy resold by the 

Districts to its customers); 

• Excess energy, over and above Hetch Hetchy's "Project 
Dependable Capacity" is sold to Airport Tenants and 
Riverbank Army Munitions Plant (operated by Norris 
Industries). 

• The Districts will have the right to purchase either one 
half of all excess energy or all such energy above the 
requirements of Airport Tenants. 

• The Districts have rights to purchase any increase in 
future Hetch Hetchy "Project Dependable Capacity" (an 
agreed minimum generation capacity Hetch Hetchy is 
able to produce, even in a dry year, approximately 260,000 
kilowatts). 

• The City's rights to withdraw firm capacity from the 
Districts, for the City's municipal purposes, after 
providing five years advance notice. 

6. Mr. Klein also advises that the City, under its contract 
with PG&E, presently has not identified an alternative source 
to its purchase of capacity reserve other than PG&E. 
However, Mr. Klein states that the City would be required to 
give PG&E notice that the City has selected an alternative to 
its current purchase of energy capacity reserve from PG&E. 

Mr. Klein further states that the City has recently become a 
member of the Western Systems Power Pool (WSPP) which 
would permit the City to purchase supplemental energy from 
a WSPP member at a lower rate than the rate charged by 
PG&E. This has resulted in $688,000 in savings, as opposed to 
purchases from PG&E supplemental energy, since July 1, 
1992. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Attachment, 
page lof 2 



2 


> 

■o 


2 







o 


2: 
o 


O 


CO 


> 


c 


c: 


03 


> 


£ 


-n 






z 


o 


Co 


> 

to 


c 


g 


<: 


> 

T5 


S 


-n 

a 


QJ 

13 


O 

CD 


o 

< 


o 


CO 


> 


^ 


C 

o 


s 


> 












e 9 




























<n 




tn 


to 


















CD 


CD 


(D 


































































o 


o 


CJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


<o 




CO 


<o 


V_ 








-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 






— 


— 


™ 


\*L 












































CJ 






















N 






















ro 


CJ 


CO 




CO 






r*- 








of 




















--J 


-j 




•^1 


CJ 


CD 


o 


-vj 


ro 


ro 


o 


CD 


Xk 




x>- 


X* 


-J 


cn 


CD 


to 


cn 








































CB £ 






























r.) 




















ro 


no 










o 


X* 






O 


O 


to 


o 


CD 


**■ 




10 


M 


CD 




























































y> 


tn 


(D 


o 






























































en 


CO 


o 


-J 


to 


CD 


ro 


cn 


<o 


ro 


o 


x>- 


o 


ro 


o 


cn 


x^ 


CJ 


(O 


cn 


O 


o 


ro 


-4 


X» 


ro 


u 


-4 


ro 




-4 




OJ 




















"" -1 




















































o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 












i a 


















































o 


o 


o 


o 


r> 


o 


O 


o 


CD 


CD 


CJ 


C J 








































o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


CJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CJ 


o 


o 




































































<v» 


</» 


<a 


<0 


</* 


CA 












(A 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


<A 










































co 




































«y* 




<« 


<A 


*A 


















































CD 










CJ 


o 


o 


<n 


-vi 


CD 


CD 


cn 


CD 






ro 




ro 




o 


CD 


-4 


(Tl 


cn 


CD 




CD 


~-J 


-4 


cn 


CD 


























-sj 


o 










CO 






-■4 


ro 


ro 


CJ 






O 


-^i 




cn 




CD 


<o 






o> 


























































































ro 


M 


CD 


o 




CD 




o 


CJ 


K) 






--I 






CD 


x^ 


CJ 




































ro 


<0 


CD 




X>- 




CJ 


<■> 


CD 


^) 


-J 


<o 


(n 


CJ 


<i) 




CD 


(J 


(T> 


<n 


^) 


CJ 


Xw 


-J 


-J 


o 


CD 


-J 


O 


ro 




































~ L 


<o 


c~> 


CD 


O 


ro 


--j 


O 


-4J 


"" , 


o 


CD 


ro 


--j 


ro 


CD 


cn 


o 


CD 


-J 


Ul 


^ 




CD 


CD 




^ 








W 


~* 


IO 




* 




* 


























X* 










rr> 




■u 


x* 


x* 


*. 


X*. 


X* 


X* 


*. 


th 






cn 


CD 






*v 


X>. 


<>. 


X*. 




Xv 






X^ 




u 


Xv 


X* 










F c ' 






m 
















CO 


CO 


<o 


CD 


-J 


o 


CD 


-sj 


CD 


ro 




CO 


CJ 


CJ 


to 


CD 


cn 


UJ 


CD 


-J 


O 


o 




-J 


m 








ro 




CD 


















> 


























































-■J 


*. 


(D 


CD 




ro 


(J 


CO 


-4 




x*. 


-J 




to 


CD 


-^1 


ro 


ro 






i 










































X;- 


x». 


C ) 


o 


o 


X- 








<o 


CD 




O 


CD 




X* 


m 




0) 


CD 


CD 


ro 






































-•j 










X*. 


















ro 








X4. 


CJ 


CD 


CD 




ro 


UJ> 


CJ 


CD 


<n 


CO 


CD 


CJ 


ro 


J> 




-j 
















"" -1 






















O 




































-J 


O 




CD 


X* 


CD 


CD 






CD 




to 


to 


CO 


X- 














i a 




















o 




r» 










i a 


X* 




tj 




o 




CD 


C") 


<o 






O 


X* 


■si 


-J 


CD 


o 


CD 


C J 


C J 


C J 






ro 




<D 




























O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


X* 


ro 


-g 


CO 


o 






CJ 


o 


O 


O 


CO 


o 


*-4 


Xw 


o 


o 


O 


CJ 


o 


o 


o 








CO 


o 
































ca 


ca 


fA 


ca 


CA 


m 






ca 


*« 


<y> 


f^ 


<& 


m 


c« 


<*» 


<fl 




«rt 


</» 


CA 


<rt 


m 


m 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


CA 


























-*■ 


CA 


M 


m 


-* 


ro 






























































ro 


~* 


















03 


































ro 


















CJ 


CD 


CD 














-4 


Xw 


Xv 




CD 




tl) 




C? 






















X>- 


en 


N 


o 


o> 


CD 


M 


M 


Cn 


-SJ 


to 




^i 




x. 
















o 






10 




CO 






X* 






^Jj 




o 


CD 
















O 








ro 




-~l 


ro 


CD 




■u 


O 




ro 




<_> 




■-j 


to 


--j 






CD 


CD 


ro 




X* 


CO 


-J 








01 




CD 




CD 


CD 


CO 






















a 










X>. 


tn 




■u 


cn 


CD 




CD 


CO 


tn 


Xw 


CD 


CD 














CJ 


o 


<o 












CD 






tn 


X* 




CJ 


-4 


CD 


ro 


















a. 










O 


-N| 


CD 


ro 


x* 


X* 




-4 


(0 


ro 




0> 


01 






<t> 


^ 


-J 




*. 


O 






CO 


(D 


-sj 


U) 


(J 


--4 


to 


CJ 


-4 




-4 




to 


CD 


























10 


10 


-J 




CD 


ro 


* 


(O 


cn 


CD 


CD 


o 


ro 


CD 


* 


-* 


** 


CD 


O 


CJ 


"* 


CJ 


•" 


^ 


O 


ro 


ro 


X^ 


O 


w 


-J 


ro 


cn 


to 


^ 


CD 


CO 


















o 


































































































X 
r, 


— 






























































































6A 


CA 


ca 


CA 


ca 


<A 


CA 


ca 


CA 


*a 


CA 


CA 






w 


*« 


f/» 


<« 


c« 


&> 


*« 


ift 




m 


<y* 


W> 


Cft 


f« 


if* 


CA 


<A 


*A 


<v» 


CA 


*A 


<A 


CA 


CA 










tn 

1 


*2 






c 


o 


o 






























CJ 


CJ 


cj 


CJ 


CJ 


CO 


(J 


tj 


CJ 


(J 


CO 


CO 


(^> 






CJ 


CJ 




<o 


(O 


(O 




CJ 


CJ 


CJ 




B 




s 










X 














--J 


-"J 


-o. 


^J 


-4 


-4 


-•4 


-J 


^J 


-^i 


^i 


-J 


-4 


-J 


-J 


•vi 


^ 


■*g 


■-4 


-4 


*nJ 


•vj 


-J 


-J 






-J 




-J. 


*>l 


-4 


-si 


-o. 






K 




















CO 






U 


co 






co 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CO 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CJ 


CO 


CJ 


CO 


CO 


CJ 


CJ 






m 


— 


< s 






CO 


O 


o 


















-4 


-4 


-4 








--J 


--J 


-j 


--r 


--4 


^ 


-J. 


-J 


-J 


--I 


-J 


-J 


--1 


•-J 


^J 


-4 


-4 


-sj 


-vl 


-4 


--J 




-4 




-J 












CD ^ 






O 


































cn 
































































































o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


CJ 


o 


o 


CJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


















U 

DO 


a 
o. 




- 










































































































































































































































































T) 


? 






a 


















■U 










































































(1 


"0 =r 
















00 




CD 


"«n 


X* 




Ca 




X* 
































o 




CO 


CD 


~4 






















oT °- 




So 






2. 


"8 


Co 








tO 




CD 




l\) 




X* 




o 
















CD 






--J 












tn 


CD 


(O 


to 






























> 

3 








'--J 


~~~1 


"cn 




to 


to 






















ro 

~CJ 


ro 




cn 


■U 










-J 




X* 


- 


























o 
cr 






a 


O 














(n 


CO 




O 




CD 












































































CD 






CD 


x* 


CD 




CD 




CD 














CJ 


ro 




CD 


ro 










CD 


o 


tn 


o 


x>. 
































•< 

w 




<1> 


— 






























































































CA 


CA 


CA 


ca 


ca 


ca 


CA 


ca 


Ca 


CA 


CA 


ca 


ty» 


CA 


m 


m 


m 














































6A 
















































o 


o 


o 


CJ 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


CO 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 
















3 

C 








O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


<D 


O 


O 


o 




































? 










































(J 


CJ 


ro 




CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 




















































































^; 


ro 


CJ 


cj 














<o 






































































-J 




-4 


CO 


*. 




^J 


o 


o 




n> 


CD 




-J 


CD 


(O 


CJ 




























i 




















U 


g 


J 




UJ 








Ul 






Ol 


CJ 


CD 


CD 


X^ 


ro 


-J 


CD 


CD 


O 


ro 


"* 


CD 


CD 


Xw 


■* 


* 


-~i 


~N| 


x^ 




— 




CD 




o 


ro 


































ca 


<a 






























































































<a <a 


-*■ 


- 1 


ca 










































M 




Crt 
























































CA 
























































































































































































































ro 
















ro 




tO 


CD 












































o 


CO o 


x>. 


to 






-J 




rD 














Crt 




















































































tn 
















o 




































































cn ( ^j 














tn 














CJ 


CJ 




o-> 


-j 










0> 


to 




CD 














































i 
l 


<*» 


«y» 








































































73 ^ 


c 

c" 


















to 


e»i«A 
cn i^i 


"ro 

CD 

"to 


x*. 

CD 


Ol 




o 




ro 
















c« 
ro 




CA 


N 










Xv 


CD 

o> 


00 

CD 


O 


O 
CD 


















i 




^ TJ a 
g. o c 

g i o 


3-i 

a (ft 






























































































































CO 




Ol 














<o 






CJ 


Xi. 










cn 


Ol 


^J 


o 


CJ 










































<a «A'tA 


♦A 


*A 


m 


























































































o 


o o 


o 


o 


o 




o 




o 














o 


o 




o 


o 










o 


o 


o 


o 


..". 










































o 


0|0 


o 


o 


o 




o 




o 


























































? 
































































































































«k 




(0 




o 














'0 


o 




































































































































































UJ 


— ]CJ 


u 




~* 




u. 




(0 














CJ 


to 




ro 


cn 












-J 


ro 


o 


o 






































- 






uL 














































































"3 


-n 


















































































































-»|ro 
































































































<A 


°l~* 


CD 


o 


CJ 




*a 




































X- 

CD 


o 
to 


X* 


CD 


o 

•sj 


















189 




o 


cr 
c 


B.W 


























m 




fh 
































































5 


















"IS'iC 














o 


















































































^ 


'::' 






^ 


















X*. 


O 




-Nj 


^1 










(O 


CD 


CD 


ro 


ro 
























- 


10 


















































"15L' 


•M) 


f 


51JPERVT 


s<xs 





































Budget Analyst 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Attachment 
page 2of 2 



















H 




t_ 


<: 


> 


? 


i\ 


e_ 


n 


7 




cn 


> 


c 


c_ 








^ 






































O 




CD 










a 
























































□ 
























S 2 






























H 




<o 


10 

ro 


10 

ro 


(0 


JS 


ro 


10 


co 


CO 


CO 


O 


CO 


tO 
































































































O 


































































CJ 






■_ 




































O y 






























O 




M 
















ro 


ro 


CJ 


ro 








m 






























CD 




LT1 


X* 


-J 


CO 


* 


en 


en 


-J 


cn 


CD 


o 


-j 




> 




« o 






























CD 
-J 




in 


CO 

co 


■O 


o 


-J 


m 


ro 


^ 


o 


u 


rn 


2 


o 

M 


X 






-» i* 


















o 












o 




O 


O 


CO 

cn 


O 


to 

O 


Q 


o 


o 


CO 


CD 


a 


ro 
O 


o 


y 






2 -I 




























o 




C 5 


c > 


f) 


1 3 


n 


n 


<■■> 


c:> 


c J 


O 


o 


o 


<1 








3 j 


















H 












o 






o 


co 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


CO 


CO 


o 


o 




























































































o 














































































m 






















































<D 












CD 




6A 

u 


ro 


ro 


*» 


Cfl 


«■ 


*■ 


w 


s 


ro 


M 


ro 


w 


E? 
























> 




















o 




CD 




-J 


(D 


O 








































































































































































CD 

o 


- 




ro 




CO 

o 
-J 


Nl 


^■4 


-J 


CD 
O 


ro 

CD 


01 


cn 


cn 


2 


o 


o 


CO 
CJ 
































O 




ro 




































qS 






























u 




w 




-u 


■U 






cn 


-u 


fr 


fr 


«h 


■t" 


4^ 


be 




m 




















O 






u 






cn 




CO 


CD 


£» 


CD 
09 


M 


CD 

m 


01 


cn 


£>. 


to 


y 


CD 
O 


ro 


s 






















O 






n 










J- 




o 


X. 




~-J 




(S 


o 


CO 


x. 


tf) 




























N 










7* 




UJ 


CO 


cn 


LU 


UJ 


— 


01 


- 1 


CD 


ro 


a> 


CD 


"^ 


w 






■" ^ 
























£ 
















ro 


rn 


CO 


■Ck 




<o 


0D 


CD 










































-* lo 




O 




o 




o 




C"> 












































ro 




en co 






o 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


ro 


























*/» 
















































































































































--j 




01 
































































































































-J 




1X3 


^ 


01 


CD 


m 


O 


CO 


•^J 


(n 


rn 


o> 


rn 




E? 












00 


















o 
<o 






^j 




(0 


o 




-u 


<n 










cn 


o 
















o 






















u> 




cn 


CD 


co 


■^ 


CO 


•^ 


CO 


- 1 


~^ 


CO 


cn 


CD 














■ 




























u 


<7> 


co 


to 


01 




cn 


a 


cn 


£* 


o 




CD 














a 


















o 










■>4 


cn 






UJ 


03 


IN) 


00 


cn 


ro 


cn 




ID 






























■" 






■u 






ro 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CD 


cn 


£«. 


ro 


ro 


ro 


*D 


cn 














o 


































































T 






























































Cfl 




o 




















(0 






<«■ 


f* 


f/» 




*» 


*/» 


</» 


m 


<* 


CA 


<y* 










ag 






c 

O 


a 


o 

3" 
























CJ 






f.) 








CJ 




<j 


CJ 






E5 














X 




















01 




-sj 


-4 


^1 


->l 


-J 


"J. 


-J 


■^1 


Nj 


**J 


■sj 


M 


-^ 














T) 




















-* 




u 


CJ 


CO 


CO 


to 


CO 


CO 


to 


to 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 




111 M 








u> 


6 


o 




















M 




--4 


-vj 


-~J 


-si 


-sj 




s 


■*i 


-^1 


-""J 


--J 


-j; 


-J 








© ^ 






o 




n 




















<n 










in 


<n 




<n 


(71 




in 


(n 


cn 


cn 






































o 




lo 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 
















Q. 


•< 




























































CD 


5^ 


S 














































































.u 


































01 ^ 


? 






a. 


33 
■ 












































CO 














■0 3" 




























ro 

"cd 












3 


CD 


o 

CD 


o> 

ro 


ro 

CO 

c0 


CD 
CO 








s 




• «>■ 1 

2. o _ 


O E 

Co 

2 m 






> 


o 


Oo 




















"ro 












(B 


-C* 


-J 

CD 


<D 




CJ> 

en 








ji 




o _ o 






o 


■a 

o 


















































































o 












ro 


o 


ro 


ro 


■si 


























i 
























frt 


m 


m 


«/> 


M 


*/» 






m 


m 


m 


m 


M 














" 




























o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


a 


o 


o 


p 












T) 






















































s 








































N 


ro 


ro 


N 


CO 


CO 


CO 




r j 


M 


ro 


ro 


M 












XI 

c 




























01 


rn 


UJ 


*o 




Ol 


.&. 


£* 






-g 


CD 










































CJ 


ro 


M 


c > 




o 


.u 


01 


0> 






J> 


tIJ 








































* 


to 


^4 


CD 


rj 


ro 


CD 


*o 


LO 


cn 


o 


cn 


CO 






































n 
















































































</» 






























































cn 


<rt 


J 


</> 


m 


«'> 












































<r> 












->j 


ID 


o 


(0 


-4 


c^ 












































o 












■D 

in 




o> 


CD 


o 

CO 


- 












































-J 














1 I 








X- 












































cr> 












len 


t/1 


o 


0> 


-_> 


o> 












































« 
















2 


*y» 




<>■» 








Ert 




5 T)i S 


" S 
































































lock & 
oslo lo 
ower 
chased 


5 £ 

a) <n 
o. -n 














































<D 


CO 


CD 










-' 
































ro 
ro 












:x> 


CD 


ro 
cn 


cn 


ro 
(0 


ro 

cn 

ro 








: 
































o> 












00 


0) 


J 


ID 


QD 


to 












































<v» 












(■- 


«« 


*y> 


m 


<^. 


<,. 












































o 












■ ' 




o 


o 


1 1 


e i 












































1 > 












■ > 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 








•-• 




































<J 
















CJ 


CJ 


u 


CJ 






















































n 


**. 






*h 


CJ 












































QQ 














01 


*. 


CJ 


(0 


fk 












































u> 












DO 


J 


o 


~j 


01 


Ul 












































2 






















.A 












3 

e 


■n 


















































ro 














I s? 














































■ j 


-J 


u> 












o o- 






























N 










tt""0. 


C" 


* 




CJ 














<n « 


"> 3 






























0) 












-J 


• 1 


■ 1 


*>. 


o 














O 










































0) 




01 


-J 


CD 










































■- > 










jlro 


o 


* 


CJ 


01 


CJ 














W 


















. 


iOA 



































Budget Analyst 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 3 - File 115-92-12 



Department: City Planning 

Items: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter II of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning) by adding Section 
207.3 to establish a 24-month amnesty period within which 
one dwelling unit in addition to those permitted in any RH-2, 
RH-3, RM, RC, NC, C or mixed use zoning district (which 
unit was constructed prior to January 1, 1992 without benefit 
of permit) may be legalized, by amending Section 161 to 
exempt legalized units from the parking requirements, and 
by adding Section 369 to impose a registration penalty; 
amending Article 37 of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code (Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Ordinance) by amending Section 37.2 to name all legalized 
units subject to Rent Board jurisdiction; amending Part II, 
Chapter XII of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Housing 
Code) by amending Section 503 to provide that ceiling heights 
for legalized units are only required to meet minimum 
requirements mandated by State law; amending Part II, 
Chapter I of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Building 
Code) by adding Section 109 to allow for exemptions from 
certain code requirements, amending Section 202 to provide 
that if a density violation is discovered after the expiration of 
the amnesty period, the property owner shall be liable for the 
full costs incurred by the City in detecting and abating the 
violation, and amending Section 332.3 to exempt units 
legalized during the amnesty period from payment of the 
work without permit investigation fee; adopting findings 
pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend sections of the City's 

Municipal Code containing the City Planning Code, 
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, 
Housing Code, and Building Code for the purpose of 
legalizing certain existing dwelling units that are currently 
illegal. The amnesty period during which such units could be 
legalized would continue for a 24 month period, beginning at 
the time the proposed legislation is approved. During this 24 
month period, owners of property in higher density 
residential housing districts would be eligible to receive 
permits for non-conforming units. Thus, the owner of a 
three-unit building in an area zoned for two-unit residential 
use would be able to register the third unit, which would be 
classified as a legal, non-conforming use if various other 
safety requirements were met. Units in residential housing 
districts zoned for single unit homes, heavy commercial 
districts and industrial districts would not be eligible. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

The proposed legislation would contain the following 
provisions: 

• Units within the current density limit or with one unit 
above the density limit could qualify for relief from parking 
for the illegal unit and relief from local minimum floor-to- 
ceiling height Building Code standards; 

• Legalized units would be subject to the rent increase 
limitations of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which would 
entitle the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to an 
annual $8 administrative fee for each residential unit 
legalized; 

• The Assessor would be notified of the unit, and future 
assessments of the property would therefore include an 
additional unit; 

• A legalized unit would be required to satisfy applicable 
Planning Code and Building Code standards for residential 
use, and Building Permit Applications would be required to 
be filed within the two year amnesty period; 

• The applicant would be required to show evidence that the 
unit was in existence on January 1, 1992. 

A one-time registration penalty would be imposed on property 
owners, in the amount of $2,500 if the owner registers during 
the first year and $5,000 if the owner registers during the 
second year, for the following reasons: (a) to fund the City's 
implementation and administration of the amnesty program; 
(b) to compensate the City for the loss of property tax revenues 
that have escaped collection during the years the properties 
containing illegal units have been underassessed; and (c) to 
compensate the City and the public for the increased burden 
on City services and neighborhood amenities. 

If a density violation were discovered after the expiration of 
the amnesty period (ie, if the property owner had not taken 
the opportunity to legalize his or her unit), the property 
owner would be liable for the full costs incurred by the City in 
detecting and abating the violation, according to the proposed 
legislation. Such costs would be dependent on the nature of 
the violation and the owner's willingness to comply. 

Comments: 1. According to the proposed legislation, it has been estimated 

that there are 20,000 to 30,000 dwelling units contained in San 
Francisco buildings that have been constructed without the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



benefit of a permit. Because these illegal units either were 
constructed without permits or were not finally inspected, it 
is likely that a substantial portion of them fail to comply with 
at least one of the life-safety requirements of the City's 
Building, Housing and Fire Codes. However, these illegal 
units constitute a sizeable portion of the City's housing, and 
moreover, of the City's affordable housing. The proposed 
legislation would attempt, to the extent possible, to maintain 
the existing stock of affordable housing, while causing 
existing illegal units to meet the City's life-safety 
requirements. 

2. San Francisco instituted an amnesty program in the early 
1960's that resulted in the legalization of only approximately 
200 dwelling units. Daly City, which had a legalization 
program similar to the proposed Amnesty Program in San 
Francisco, has legalized approximately 400 units in ten 
years, or an average of 40 units per year. 

3. San Francisco's population is approximately nine times 
larger than the population of Daly City. If nine times more 
property owners in San Francisco registered illegal units 
than in Daly City, then approximately 360 units per year 
would register, for a total of 720 units over two years. 
However, Mr. Robert Passmore of the Department of City 
Planning reports that a recently approved State law requires 
that property sellers disclose to buyers if a unit is illegal. Mr. 
Passmore anticipates that this proposed City ordinance 
would be more effective than Daly City's ordinance because of 
this State mandated disclosure law, in that more than half of 
properties changing owners during the two-year amnesty 
period are anticipated to apply for permits. 

4. Based on 360 units the first year, at $2,500, and 360 units 
the second year, at $5,000, revenue from penalties for the 
proposed legislation are estimated to be $2.7 million over a 
two year period. To the extent that more property owners 
register their units, additional revenue would be generated 
for the City. 

5. According to Ms. Anita Jin of the Tax Collector's Office, 
apartment building owners who maintain buildings with 
three or more apartment units must pay a Business License 
Fee to the City. This Business License Fee varies from $111.85 
to $404.50 depending on the number of livable rooms, as 
determined by the housing inspector, Ms. Jin reports. A 
building owner with a two unit apartment building, seeking 
to legalize a third unit under this proposed legislation, would 
be required to pay a Business License Fee. In addition, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



building owners who already pay a Business License Fee 
might pay a higher fee if more rooms in the building are 
classified as livable. Any such Business License Fees would 
represent new revenue to the City. The Tax Collector's Office 
cannot project the number of buildings to which the fee would 
apply or the number of livable rooms in such buildings, and 
therefore cannot determine the amount of additional 
revenues which would accrue to the General Fund. 

6. Ms. Judy Boyajian of the City Attorney's Office advises that 
the proposed legislation does not specifically exempt property 
owners from paying additional property taxes for newly 
legalized units. According to Mr. Larry Eppinette of the 
Assessor's office, legalized units not currently registered on 
the Assessor's tax rolls would be subject to an escaped 
assessment for property taxes retroactive to the actual date of 
construction or for the previous eight years, whichever is 
less. For example, if a business owner constructed an illegal 
residential unit three years ago, the building would be 
assessed for uncollected property taxes for the three years in 
which the illegal unit existed. This would result in the 
recovery of additional property tax revenue to the City. The 
Assessor's Office cannot estimate at this time the amount of 
additional property tax revenue that would be generated. 

7. According to Ms. Boyajian, although the proposed 
legislation does not exempt property owners from paying 
additional property taxes for newly legalized units, certain 
neighborhood groups have questioned whether or not the 
Assessor would be allowed to collect retroactive escaped 
assessment taxes under the provision of State Proposition 13. 
Ms. Boyajian advises that the City Attorney's Office has not 
issued an opinion as to whether such escaped assessment 
taxes would be permissable. However, assessments would be 
revised to reflect the addition of a unit for future property 
taxes, which would result in increased future revenues, 
whether or not escaped revenues could be collected. 

8. In summary, new revenues to the City as a result of the 
proposed ordinance would consist of the following: 

(a) A one-time registration penalty would be imposed on 
property owners, in the amount of $2,500 for the first year and 
$5,000 for the second year, which is estimated to generate at 
least $2.7 million in General Fund revenues over the two year 
amnesty period; 

(b) An annual fee of $8 per unit to support the Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Board and not the General 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Fund, resulting in additional estimated revenues of $2,880 
during the first year and at least $5,760 annually thereafter; 

(c) A Business License Fee, which varies from $111.85 to 
$404.50, would be imposed on buildings with two units 
seeking to legalize a third, and building owners currently 
paying the Business License Fee might pay a higher amount, 
resulting in an undetermined amount of additional revenue 
to the General Fund; 

(d) Legalized units not currently registered on the Assessor's 
tax rolls would be subject to an escaped assessment for 
property taxes retroactive to the actual date of construction or 
for the previous eight years, whichever is less, if such 
escaped assessment taxes are permissable under State 
Proposition 13, resulting in an undetermined amount of 
additional revenue to the General Fund; 

(e) Increased property taxes in the future as a result of the 
Assessor being notified of the additional unit, and future 
assessments of the property therefore including that unit. 

The total new revenue would be dependent upon the number 
and nature of newly registered units. 

9. According to the proposed legislation, the legislation is 
found to be consistent with the Priority Policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. However, the Planning 
Commission has not yet taken a position on the proposed 
legislation. The Planning Commission must make a 
recommendation, or 90 days must pass, before the Board of 
Supervisors can take final action on the proposed legislation. 

Recommendation: Refer the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission 
and continue the proposed legislation until either the 
Planning Commission makes a recommendation or 90 days 
have passed. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 4 - File 185-92-4 

1. The proposed resolution would urge the Mayor to utilize the 1992-93 
Children's Services Plan as the foundation for the development of the 1993-94 
Children's Services Plan and to continue funding during the next fiscal year, 
(1993-94), for those community based organizations selected to provide services 
identified in the 1992-93 Children's Services Plan. 



2. Section 6.415 was added to the San Francisco Charter to effect the 
Children's Amendment approved by the electorate as Proposition J in November, 
1991. Section 6.415 requires the Mayor's Office to submit a Children's Services 
Plan (CSP) for approval of the Board of Supervisors annually by December 31 of 
each year for the subsequent fiscal year beginning on July 1. Therefore, for fiscal 
year 1993-94, the Mayor's Office is required to submit a CSP by December 31, 1992. 

3. The Children's Amendment to the San Francisco Charter established a 
new fund, the San Francisco Children's Fund, to be expended exclusively to 
provide services for children above and beyond services already funded in the 
City's budget. According to Section 6.415, the CSP shall propose goals and 
objectives for the fund and designate the City departments that would administer 
the programs funded. For fiscal year 1992-93 the Children's Fund is $5.7 million 
in accordance with the requirements of the Children's Amendment. For fiscal 
year 1993-94, the Children's Fund is estimated to be $13.6 million. 

4. The Children's Services Plan for fiscal year 1992-93, as approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in February, 1992, is as follows: 



Service Categories 

Childcare 

Vouchers to Parents 
Day Care Center Subsidies 
SFUSD Children's Centers 
Latchkey Programs 
Respite Care 

Day Care Technical Assistance 
Total Child Care 

Health and Social Services 

Public Health Nurse - AFDC Intake 

Golden Gate School Health Center 

Neighborhood Preventive Health Team 

Healthy Start Matching Funds 

Mental Health - Health Centers Outreach 

GAIN Teen Program 

Multi-service Family Support 

Homeless Children 

Mental Health - Day Care outreach 

Child Abuse Awareness 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



$550,000 

300,000 

80,000 

246,409 

50,000 

50.000 



$22,000 

22,000 

368,945 

100,000 

149,040 

225,000 

200,000 

75,000 

140,000 

50.000 



$1,276,409 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Total Health and Social Services $1,351,985 

Job Readiness. Training, and Placement 

Dropout Prevention $244,822 

Job Readiness/H.S. or G.E.D. 400,000 

Foster Children Vocational Counseling 28,000 

Mayor's Youth Employment & Education 400,000 

Workreation Expansion 64,590 

Early Exposure - ages 12-14 50.000 
Total Job Readiness, Training, 
and Placement 1,187,412 

Library. Recreation. Delinquency Prevention. Education 

Extended Library Children's Hours $321,543 

Off-site Library Services 75,000 

Age Appropriate Reading Materials 25,000 

Rec/Park Youth Services Planner 55,878 

Teen Multi-Service Centers 300,000 

Tutorials/Peer Support 300,000 

Juvenile Detention Diversion 175,000 

Special Needs 235.126 
Total Library, Recreation, Delinquency 
Prevention, and Education 1.487.547 

Total Service Category Expenditures $5,303^53 

Administrative Costs 

Additional Personnel $265,541 

Fiscal/Accounting Services 36,000 

Rent, supplies and equipment 32,000 

Miscellaneous 14.000 

Total Administrative Costs 347,541 

Unallocate d Revenues 49.106 

Total Children's Fund $5,700,000 

5. Of the $5.7 million included in the Children's Fund for 1992-93, 
$3,275,126 is for contractual services for a full year. Mr. Frank Grimmelmann of 
the Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Their Families (MOCYF), reports that 
the MOCYF will expend an estimated $3,114,638 from the 1992-93 Children's Fund 
for contractual services for a nine month period from January 1, through 
September 30, 1993. The Request For Proposal (RFP) process began on July 1, 
1992, and 124 proposals are currently being reviewed. Final selection of the 
contractors is expected by the end of October, 1992. In addition to the $49,106 
shown above, the $160,488 difference between the $3,275,126 included in the 1992-93 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

CSP and the estimated amount to be expended ($3,114,638) will be retained in the 
Unallocated Revenues account for future allocation. 

6. In order to maintain continuity in the provision of contractual services 
by community based organizations, the MOCYF proposes contracting with the 
same contractors, at the same service levels and at approximately the same 
amount (estimated at $3,114,638) in the succeeding nine month period from 
October 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994 from the estimated $13.6 million allocation 
to the Children's Fund for 1993-94. The actual contract amounts for the 
succeeding nine month period in 1993-94 may differ from the 1992-93 amounts 
because MOCYF will make the appropriate reductions to recognize one-time 
start-up costs and other adjustments after an evaluation of actual performance of 
the original contractors selected. Details of the final contractual services 
amounts for 1992-93 that will be the basis for the 1993-94 contract estimates and 
the approximately $10,485,362 balance of the 1993-94 Children's Fund budget ($13.6 
million less the $3,114,638 for contractual services) will be included in the 
Children's Service Plan for 1993-94 that will be submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors in subsequent legislation. 

Comments 

1. Although the 1992-93 Children's Plan included $265,541 for Additional 
Personnel, the 1992-93 Budget for the Children's Fund includes a total of $271,929, 
or $6,388 more for salary standardization, for five full time positions and fringe 
benefits. 

2. As stated above, 124 proposals from potential outside contractors are 
currently being considered for contractual services that will begin on January 1, 
1993. Final selection of the contractors is expected by the end of October, 1992. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 5 - File 146-92-52.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
October 14, 1992. 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
accept and expend a continuation grant, which includes 
indirect costs of $241,709 based on 20 percent of personnel 
costs, from the Centers for Disease Control to continue 
funding the AIDS Surveillance Project. 

$2,102,567 

January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 

Federal Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

AIDS Surveillance and Seroprevalence Project 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-92-52) authorizing the DPH to apply for a grant of up 
to $2.5 million from the CDC to continue funding the AIDS 
Surveillance Project. The proposed resolution would 
authorize the DPH to accept and expend this grant of 
$2,102,567 to continue funding the AIDS Surveillance and 
Seroprevalence Project. The AIDS Surveillance Project 
identified and tracks cases of AIDS through various 
methods, including surveillance at seven San Francisco 
hospitals, visits to private physician's offices, routine 
reporting by physicians and other health care practitioners, 
death certificate surveillance, and various other sources. The 
AIDS Surveillance Project collects other information 
regarding identified AIDS cases, such as the coincidence of 
other diseases, medical history, and test results. Useful 
supplemental data is also collected, including census tract, 
diagnosing hospital, ethnicity, and history of antiviral 
therapy. AIDS surveillance information is disseminated to 
community-based organizations, medical centers, medical 
providers, AIDS organizations, and hospitals. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 
Project Budget: 



The Seroprevalence Project estimates the prevalence of HrV 
infection in San Francisco through surveys. These surveys 
are designed to estimate the level of HrV infection in various 
populations and to monitor trends over time. The proposed 
grant would support surveys to be conducted at various sites 
throughout the City and in various other counties. 1993 
populations to be surveyed including young men who have 
sex with men, homeless youth, women seeking family 
planning, and non-injection drug users. In the Bay Area, the 
counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, 
San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma County would 
participate in seroprevalence surveys. Seroprevalence data 
would be used to target and evaluate HrV/AIDS prevention 
programs. 



Required Match: None. 



$241,709, based on 20 percent of salary costs. 



Personnel 


FTE 




Sr. Health Programmer 


0.2 


$10,414 


Health Program Coordinator III 


0.8 


36,655 


Epidemiologist III 


1.0 


63,724 


Epidemiologist II 


2.0 


97,700 


Epidemiologist I 


0.1 


4,394 


Sr. Disease Control Investigator 


4.0 


180,595 


Disease Control Investigator 


11.0 


490,432 


MIS Specialist III 


0.3 


12,702 


MIS Technician II 


2.7 


65,519 


Senior Programmer Analyst 


0.5 


28,560 


Programmer Analyst 


1.0 


42,696 


Sr. Microbiologist 


1.0 


55,252 


Laboratory Helper 


0.5 


15,264 


Secretary II 


1.0 


38,569 


Sr. Clerk Typist 


1.0 


36,480 


Physician Specialist 


0.1 


11,101 


Social Worker 


05 


18.486 


Subtotal Salaries 


27.7 


$1,208,543 


Fringe Benefits at 26 % 




314.220 



Total Personnel 

Travel 
Local Travel 

Out-of-Jurisdiction Travel 
(mandated trips to funder) 
Total Travel 



13,650 
3.600 



$1,522,763 



17,250 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Equipment 
Personal Computers 

(3 at approximately $2,862 each) 8,585 

Software 1,087 

Computer Network Equipment 

(cables, cards, etc.) 2,035 

Total Equipment 11,707 

Materials and Supplies 

Office Supplies $10,143 

Clinical Supplies 3,000 
Laboratory Tests (a total of approx. 

13,000 various HIV tests) 73,383 

Slides 500 

Educational Supplies 1,000 

Furniture 3,570 

Subscriptions 500 
Total Materials and Supplies $92,096 

Contractual Services 

University of California, Women's Health Centers 

San Francisco General Hospital 

(see Comment 5) 

Salaries $16,500 

Fringe Benefits @ 18% 3.000 

Total Contractual Salaries 19,500 

Materials and Supplies 500 

Total UC Women's Health 20,000 

Haight-Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc. 

Salaries 16,000 

Fringe Benefits @ 19% 3.000 

Total Contractual Salaries 19,000 

Materials and Supplies 1.000 

Total Haight Ashbury Free Clinics 20,000 

Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, 
Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, Marin County 
(see Comment 6) 
Salaries 15,000 

Fringe Benefits @ 26% 3.900 
Total Various Counties 18.900 

Total Contractual Services 58,900 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 






October 21, 1992 






Operating Expenses 






Rent 


52,191 




Telephone 


24,173 




Photocopy Lease 


9,100 




Postage 


3,340 




Courier Services 


2,000 




Printing 


3,300 




Reproduction 


4,838 




Advertising 


800 




MIS Account 


2,500 




National Death Index Fees 


3,400 




Incentives for Survey Participants 


25,000 




Insurance 


$7,500 




Total Operating Expenses 




$138,142 


Recreational Vehicle (RV) Costs (see Comment 3) 




RV fuel, oil, tolls, etc. 


2,400 




RV parking 


1,100 




RV rental and insurance 


14.400 




Total RV Costs 




17,900 


Training 




2,100 


Indirect Costs 




241.709 



Total Project Budget 



$2,102,567 



Comments: 1. The proposed grant includes $241,709 in indirect costs, 

which is equal to 20 percent of salaries, not including fringe 
benefits. 

2. The proposed grant would be the third year of a five year 
grant. The proposed grant of $2,102,567 represents a $116,455 
or 5.9 percent increase over the prior year's grant of 
$1,986,112. 

3. A portion of the proposed grant would support a Young 
Men's Study, where DPH personnel would travel in a mobile 
recreational vehicle (RV) to sites where young men are 
known to congregate in order to provide HrV testing. Funds 
to support this RV are included under RV Costs, at a total of 
$17,900. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



4. The DPH advises that local travel costs, at $13,650, include 
250 per mile for use of employee vehicles. Employee vehicles 
are to be used for surveillance staff to conduct surveillance 
activities and field investigations, for seroprevalence 
personnel to travel between project sites, for the Young Men's 
Survey coordinator to investigate and negotiate multicounty 
survey sites, and for travel to mobile Young Men's Survey 
sites. 

5. The Young Men's Study is particularly targetting young 
men who have sex with men, according to the AIDS Office. 
In addition, the non-injection drug user study and the 
homeless youth study would capture men who have sex with 
men within those populations. 

6. The University of California (UC), Women's Health 
Centers, San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), at $20,000 
for contractual services, would estimate the prevalence of the 
HIV virus among women attending the abortion clinic at 
SFGH. The survey would allow the DPH to compare HrV 
prevalence for women in the abortion clinic with women 
carrying their pregnancies to term in demographically 
similar populations. 

The Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc., at $20,000 for 
contractual services, would estimate HrV seroprevalence 
among non-injection drug users entering their detoxification 
program. 

According to the DPH, the UC Women's Health Centers and 
the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinics, Inc. were selected 
on a sole source basis because these organizations have been 
collecting and analyzing data for the surveys of non-injection 
drug users and women seeking family planning for the first 
two years of the project. The funder has mandated that these 
organizations be retained to complete their survey work. The 
University of California and the Haight Ashbury Free 
Medical Clinics are non-profit organizations. 

7. Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, 
Sonoma County, Santa Clara County, and Marin County, at 
$18,900, would support personnel from the various counties to 
assist Young Men's Survey personnel to conduct survey 
activities in their counties, and would give test results and 
post-test counseling to survey participants in their respective 
counties. The various counties were selected on a sole 
source basis, as they were the county governments in the 
areas surveyed. These sole source selections are also 
mandated by the funder, according to the DPH. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

8. The proposed grant includes $11,707 for computer 
equipment. The DPH has not received authorization from the 
Electronic Information Processing Steering Committee 
(EIPSC) for the proposed computer purchase. Therefore, 
$11,707 should be reserved pending EIPSC approval. 

9. Attached is the Summary of Grant Request, as prepared 
by the DPH. 

10. The DPH has completed a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

Recommendations: Amend to reserve $11,707 pending EIPSC approval, and 
approve, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Attachment 



' " " • n 1 1 h r"mrni«inp - Summnrv ^r r Tint Remi^t 

Dept of Health .id Human Services 



Crar.tor Centers for Disease Control 

Contact Person Nealeen Austin/Jeff Efird 

Address 1600 Clifton Road 

Atlanta, GA 30305 

Amount Requested 5 2,102,567 

Term: From 1/1/93 
Health Commission 



CO/AIDS Div 



AIDS Office 



Division ■ 

Section 

Contact Person Tim Pi land 

Telephone 554-9132 



Application Deadline 8/17/92 
.Notification Expected 10/15/92 



_ To 12/31/93 

9/ 15/92 Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



L Il£i 



Df scrintion: 



.p(»05»-..t; -cri.) 



Request to fcpjsltf<fold (accept and expend) a (trxs$ (continuation) (dmoocsi^^acHrcKJCSKaacKJ^ 

grant in the amount ofS 2. 102.567 from the period of 1/1/93 to 12/31/93 

to provide continued support for AIDS Surveillance Project services. 



d *££r* ****?'. ottnber * frocT» 



First year of new three-year project period; funds all HIV/AIDS surveillance and se ro- 
prevalence activities conducted by the. AIDS Office; project will include National D eath 
Index Project activites as well beginning this year; please see detailed descriptio n of 
AIDS Surveillance Project activities included in this resolution package. 



17T. Outcnmes/Ohifcrives: 

The overall object of this project is to generate meaningful morbidity and mortalit y 
data about the nature of this epidemic in order to identify and address HIV/AIDS di sease 
trends and issues. 

TV. rrf..--t of R.-i|ir;;on or T-rrii-^pnn n f T>». r,|.^<- 



Failure to accent and expend these funds would significantly impair our ability to 
measure and track the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco; failure to accept and expend 
these epidemiologic research funds would also jeopardize future grant funding. 

;1 Tn forma :ion: 





Cnl. A 


cm. n 


Cnl. C 


C 


nl. P 




7~o Yci_*s Ago 


?;« VcacfOfij. 


• P.-opoicd 


Oir.jt 


Cr::: Asouat 


1,685,616 


1,986,112 


2,102,567 


+ 


116,455 


Persozzel 


1,112,330 


1,393,627 


1,522,763 


+ 


129,136 


Ect:5=eai 


6.473 


18.180 


11,707 


- 


6,473 


Co;:::c: Svc. 


156.529 


156.529 


58,900 


- 


97,629' 


Ma:. & Suap. 


102.126 


102,426 


92,161 


- 


10,265 




35.986 


35.986 


52,191 


+ 


16,205 


0:h:r 


93.678 


94.152 


123,136 


+ 


28,984 


Inc'i: iz: Costs 


214.750 


221,211 


241,709, 


NT 


20.498 


VI n, Ia p. n(r ,< 


cino 








VTT ^.. tr .nn,l 


6,473 
27.40 


18,180 
29-70 


11,707 
27.70 


- 


6,473 


F/T CSC 


2.00 


P/T CSC 






6.75 


6.75 


TBD 




TBD 



None 



Sou:;:;'s) of Don-jrant funding for salaries of CSC employees workiD; part-time on ti 

Nor.e 



Will --i-l funded employees be retained after this ;rant lerraioates? If so, Hon? 
_KC 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Item 6 - File 97-92-59 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by adding 
Section 19A.31 to permit the Department of Public Health 
to enter into indemnification agreements with the 
California Family Planning Council enabling the 
Department of Public Health to participate in family 
planning services. 

Since 1983, Federal funds for family planning services have 
been administered in California by the California Family 
Planning Council, Inc. (CFPC), a non-profit corporation. In 
order to participate in the grant program, the Department 
of Public Health (DPH) must enter into a written 
agreement with CFPC concerning the use of the grant 
funds. The standard agreement used by CFPC, as 
administrator of the grant funds, includes an 
indemnification clause which protects CFPC from liability 
or damages which may result from the City's provision of 
family planning services under the grant program. 

Any proposed agreement which includes an indemnification 
clause must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
unless authorization to enter into such an agreement is 
provided in the Administrative Code or other Code. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code to provide the Department of Public Health with 
blanket authority to enter into indemnification agreements 
with CFPC which would enable DPH to participate in 
family planning services funded by CFPC. If the proposed 
ordinance is adopted, DPH would no longer be required to 
obtain separate approval of the Board of Supervisors to 
enter into subsequent indemnification agreements with 
CFPC. 

1. Mr. Stephen Purser of the Department of Public Health 
reports that the City will receive approximately $350,000 in 
grant funds from the California Family Planning Council 
during calendar year 1992, representing approximately 30 
percent of total annual funding for San Francisco's family 
planning services. 

According to Mr. Purser, CFPC employs a standard form 
agreement which governs San Francisco's expenditure of 
family planning grant funds administered by CFPC. The 
standard form agreement includes an indemnification 
clause which holds CFPC harmless from any liability which 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



may result from the City's provision of family planning 
services under the grant program, according to Mr. Purser. 

2. Mr. Purser states that in prior years, agreements 
between DPH and CFPC have been submitted to the Board 
of Supervisors for approval because they have contained the 
indemnification clause. The agreements are submitted 
separately from the request by DPH to apply for, accept, 
and expend the grant funds administered by CFPC. Were 
it not for the indemnification clause, DPH would not be 
required to submit its written agreement with CFPC to the 
Board of Supervisors for approval. Rather, execution of the 
written agreement would be authorized pursuant to the 
resolution of the Board of Supervisors authorizing DPH to 
apply for, accept, and expend the grant funds, according to 
Mr. Purser. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that the Department of Public 
Health is presently authorized under Section 19A of the 
Administrative Code to enter into contracts for specified 
purposes which may include indemnification clauses. 
Specifically, Section 19A.23, concerning agreements with 
the University of California for clinical services and 
training projects, and Section 19A.24, concerning 
agreements with the San Francisco Community Clinic 
Consortium for health care services, authorize DPH to enter 
into contracts which contain indemnification clauses. 
However, the indemnification clauses presently authorized 
under these two sections of the Administrative Code limit 
the City's liability to damages "in proportion to" the extent 
of its responsibility. In contrast, the standard form 
agreement with CFPC indemnifies CFPC against claims of 
any nature "arising from or connected with" the City's 
family planning services. 

4. Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's Office indicates 
that by agreeing to indemnify CFPC, the City would be 
required to defend CFPC and to pay all costs, fees, and 
damages in any action brought against CFPC with respect 
to the provision of the family planning services funded by 
the agreement. Since CFPC is not the direct provider of 
services, it is unlikely that CFPC would be named as a 
defendant in any legal action regarding the provision of 
services, according to Ms. Jesson. However, Ms. Jesson 
indicates that if CFPC were sued, the City would be 
required to defend any such action and pay any damages for 
which liability were established. 

5. DPH reports that the City contracts with the University 
of California at San Francisco (UCSF) to provide the family 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



planning services funded under the agreement with CFPC. 
Ms. Jesson states that the standard contractual agreement 
between the City and UCSF contains a "mutual 
indemnification" clause in which the City and UCSF agree 
to indemnify each other, "but only in proportion to and to 
the extent" that liability "is caused by or results from the 
negligent or intentional acts or omissions" of that party. As 
the direct provider of services, UCSF is the most likely 
defendant in any action claiming injury from the provision 
of services under the agreement, according to Ms. Jesson. 
She states that if UCSF has caused any injury in providing 
these services, UCSF should be liable for the injury under 
the "mutual indemnification" clause and the City would be 
protected from the payment of fees, costs, and damages. 

6. Ms. Jesson states that if the proposed ordinance is 
adopted, DPH would be authorized to enter into agreements 
with CFPC which include the indemnification clause, 
without obtaining prior approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. If the proposed ordinance is not approved, 
DPH would continue to be required to present each 
proposed agreement with CFPC to the Board of Supervisors 
for approval, if the agreement contains an indemnification 
clause. 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that the proposed ordinance, 
which would authorize specific wording for the 
indemnification clause, does not include the full text of the 
indemnification clause as it appears in the standard form 
agreement with CFPC. However, Ms. Jesson believes that 
the difference between the language of the proposed 
ordinance and the language of the indemnification 
agreement with CFPC is minimal and from a legal 
standpoint will have no practical effect. 

8. As previously noted, the grant funds administered by 
CFPC are Federal funds made available under Title X of 
the Public Health Services Act. According to Mr. Purser, 
these funds are subject to new regulations which have 
recently taken effect which prevent personnel in family 
planning clinics, other than medical doctors, to provide 
information to women concerning options to terminate their 
pregnancies. Mr. Purser indicates that San Francisco's 
family planning clinics are "minimally" complying with the 
new regulations but that services to women in San 
Francisco have not been curtailed due to the new 
regulations. 

Mr. Purser further indicates that the new regulations 
continue to be the subject of litigation and could be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

invalidated at some indefinite future date as the result of 
the litigation. Mr. Purser also indicates that there is 
widespread belief that the regulations may be withdrawn 
by Executive Order of the President after January 20, 1993. 

Ms. Jesson states that, in her opinion, the regulations do 
not significantly increase the City's exposure to potential 
liability resulting from the provision of family planning 

services. 

9. On October 7, 1992, DPH executed an agreement with 
CFPC governing the expenditure of grant funds for 
calendar year 1992. This agreement, which includes the 
indemnification clause, was submitted by DPH with the 
request for approval of the proposed ordinance. Since the 
agreement has already been executed, the proposed 
ordinance should be amended to apply retroactively to 
October 1, 1992. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the title and the body of the proposed ordinance 
to indicate that the proposed ordinance would apply 
retroactively to October 1, 1992. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 7 - File 51-92-2 

Note: This item was continued from the Finance Committee meeting on October 
14, 1992. 

The proposed item transmits the claims of various City employees for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 

Section 10.25-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
costs of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The Controller 
recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted to the 
Controller, and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the 
Controller that the damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amount 
certified for payment is fair and reasonable. 

The proposed eleven employee claims are for the period April, May and 
June, 1992. Of the eleven employee claims submitted, the Controller's Office has 
recommended that five claims be denied and four claims be paid at a total of 
$729.95. According to the Controller, the remaining two claims which were 
submitted by two Municipal Railway (MUNI) employees do not require review by 
the Controller's Office or approval of the Board of Supervisors and can be 
processed at the departmental level. One of the two MUNI employee claims is 
covered under a Memorandum of Understanding and the other involves a 
uniformed employee. Under Section 10.25-5 of the Administrative Code payment 
of claims to uniformed employees assigned to the Police Department, Fire 
Department, Sheriffs Department and MUNI, can be made by the Controller 
when (1) a verified claim has been filed, (2) the department head has certified to 
the Controller that the amount certified for payment is fair and reasonable and (3) 
funds are available for the purpose. 

Comment 

The Controller's Office has certified that funds are available for these 
employee reimbursements. The source of funds would be Claims and 
Judgments, General Fund. 

Recommendation 

Prepare in and report out of Committee a resolution approving the requested 
reimbursement in the amount of $729.95. 



BOARD OF SI TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



«^,-i- »PCT 16 '92 02:58PM CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 
Date: October 13, 1992 



P. 3/15 



REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CITY EMPLOYEES 



Department. 
Claimant 



Public Works 
John Ayres 

Juvenile Court 
Jacob Davis 

Fred Nelson 

Joe Berkowitz 

Municipal Railway (PUC) 
Duane Silver 

Andrew Bass 

Superior Court 
Marie L. Park 



Amount Amount Controllers 

Claimed Reco™"»"ded Comments 



265.00 



265.00 



295.00 295.00 



104.00 105.00 



64.95 64.95 



1300.00 -0- 



327.00 -0- 



15.00 -0- 



Auto required for 
work. No evidence 

of negligence. 



Damaged apparel in 
performance of job 
duties . 

Damaged glasses 
Sustained in 
performance of job 
duties . 

Loss sustained as 
part of performance 
of job duties 



Tool losses covered 
by MOU. Ad. Code 
does not apply. 

Uniformed employee. 
Ad Code does nor 
apply. 



Personal items not 
required for work. 



38 



OCT 16 '92 02 :59PM CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 
bblic Health 



P. 4/15 



:even Tessier 



215.91 



-0- 



Damaged clothing 
due to contributory 
negligence. 



leryl Smith 



760.00 -0- 



Stolen personal 
effects from auto 
not required for 
work . Contributory 
negligence. 



itrick Fosdahl 



325.00 



-0- 



Stolen jacket not 
required for job; 
contributory 
negligence. 



izanne Thornley 



613.21 



-0- 



Daitaged auto not 
required for work. 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Item 8 - File 47-92-6.1 



Department 
Item: 

Description: 



Real Estate Department 

Ordinance approving and adopting St. Mary's Square garage 
legal documents and authorization for management 
agreement. 

St. Mary's Square garage is a 39 year old City-owned parking 
facility located at 433 Kearny Street at California Street. St. 
Mary's Square garage has 828 parking spaces and served 
approximately 140,000 transient vehicles and between 450 and 
500 monthly vehicles in 1991-92. 

Under the proposed legal documents, the parking rates to be 
charged per vehicle parked in the St. Mary's Square garage 
are as follows: 

Hourly Parking-Daytime Rates (attended) 
(6 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F) 



Time 



Parking Charge 



Early Bird (in by 6 am, out by 6 pm) $10.00 

0-V 2 hour 2.50 

V2-1 hour 4.00 

1-1 V 2 hours 5.50 

1V2-2 hours 7.50 

2-2 V 2 hours 9.50 

2V2-3 hours 11.50 

3-3V 2 13.50 

over3V 2 17.00 

Hourly Parking-Nighttime Rates (unattended) 
(6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. M-F; Sundays and holidays) 

0-1 hours $1.00 

1-2 hours 2.50 

over 2 hours 4.50 



Saturday Rates 

(6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) 

0-1 hour 

1-2 hours 

2-3 hours 

3-4 hours 

4-5 hours 

5-6 hours 

6-7 hours 



$1.00 
2.50 
4.50 
7.00 
9.00 
11.50 
14.25 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

over 7 hours 16.50 

Monthly Parking 

$260.00 per month (payable on a month-to-month basis only) 

Lost Ticket Charge 

Maximum rate. 

The proposed legislation only approves the legal documents 
and management agreement as to form and authorizes the 
Director of Property to seek competitive bids for the 
management of the St. Mary's Square garage and annex. 
The actual award of a management agreement will be 
subject to subsequent legislation to be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Comments: 1. Except for nighttime rates, the proposed rates are the same 

as the current rates. The proposed nighttime rates, as noted 
above, include a maximum charge of $4.50 for over two 
hours. Currently, the maximum nighttime rate is $10 for 
over 6 hours, with a rate schedule as follows: 3-4 hours: $6; 4- 
5 hours: $7.50; and over 5 hours: $10. Mr. Kevin Hagerty of 
the Parking Authority advises that nighttime rates are 
proposed to be reduced to encourage people to park in order to 
shop and eat in Chinatown. According to Mr. Hagerty, the 
current nighttime parking program is not successful, since 
many persons are reluctant to pay more than $5 to park in 
the evening. The Parking Authority would require that the 
new operator establish a marketing program for people 
visiting Chinatown at night and on week-ends. Estimated 
revenue from the proposed nighttime rates is $34,800 in gross 
receipts annually as compared to $15,600 in gross receipts 
annually from the existing nighttime rates. 

2. Mr. Hagerty advises that the day rates proposed to be 
charged at St. Mary's Square garage, which are the same as 
are currently being charged, are somewhat higher than 
other City-owned parking facilities because St. Mary's Square 
garage is located in and serves the financial district. Most 
City-owned and operated garages are located in areas serving 
retail districts and the rates are lower, Mr. Hagerty reports. 

3. Mr. Hagerty advises that the proposed agreement would be 
different from past agreements, in that the Parking 
Authority would enter into a management agreement 
instead of a lease agreement. Under a management 
agreement, the City would control total gross receipts and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



pay the garage operator a monthly management fee based on 
a percentage of gross revenues. Under the current lease 
agreement, the City receives a monthly fee, or rent, based on 
a percentage of gross revenues, and the operator controls 
total gross receipts. For example, under a lease agreement, 
the City might receive 65 percent of gross revenues from the 
operator; while under a management agreement, the City 
might pay an operator 35 percent of gross revenues, and 
retain the balance of 65 percent. 

According to Mr. Hagerty, the proposed management 
agreement would have no effect on revenue, since it would 
simply restructure the agreement with no change in the 
revenue apportionment. Mr. Hagerty reports that this 
change is proposed in response to advice from the City 
Attorney's office that a management agreement is more 
flexible than a lease agreement in that the City could more 
readily terminate a management agreement with an 
unsatisfactory operator. 

4. The St. Mary's Square garage generated gross annual 
1991-92 revenues of approximately $2,631,806, as follows: 





Amount 


Percent 


Operator 


$665,519 


25.3% 


Off-Street Parking Fund 


612,389 


23.3 


Recreation and Parks 


845,679 


32.1 


Parking Tax (General Fund) 


508.219 


19.3 


TOTAL 


$2,631,806 


100.0 



According to Mr. Hagerty, in conformance with the 
agreement between the City and the operator, the City 
received 64.28 percent of gross revenue not including parking 
tax funds, and the operator received the remainder, or 35.72 
percent. Of the 64.28 percent received by the City, the Off- 
Street Parking Fund received 42 percent, and the Recreation 
and Parks Department received 58 percent. 

5. Mr. Hagerty advises that the operator is responsible for all 
operating expenses from its 35.72 percent share of total 
revenues. 

6. Mr. Hagerty reports that the previous agreement with the 
operator of the St. Mary's Square Garage expired September 
30, 1992. Mr. Hagerty advises that the contract was not bid 
competitively prior to the expiration of the contract because 
the facility requires approximately $1.2 million in seismic 
repairs as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Mr. 
Hagerty reports that the Parking Authority was unable to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



initiate a competitive bid prior to inspection and inventory by 
the Department of Public Works that would identify the 
impact on garage operations in ensuing years. According to 
Mr. Hagerty, the DPW has identified the extent of the 
required repair work and the Parking Authority is now able 
to begin a competitive bid. (Mr. Hagerty advises that 30,000 
linear feet of cracks in the garage require repair, and some 
floor slabs need to be replaced. These repairs are scheduled to 
begin in the fall of 1993.) 

7. According to Mr. Hagerty, a month-to-month extension of 
the previous contract was not extended to the previous 
operator, Metropolitan Parking Corporation. Prior to the 
expiration of that contract, the Parking Authority discovered 
that Metropolitan Parking Corporation's contract was no 
longer guaranteed by a performance bond, which is obtained 
from an insurance company, guaranteeing that the company 
would meet the requirements of the lease. The Parking 
Authority therefore submitted emergency legislation, which 
was approved by the Board of Supervisors, to allow the 
Parking Authority to hire a different operator under the 
same terms and conditions as the previous operator, 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation, until such time as a new 
agreement could be awarded. The Parking Authority 
anticipates that a new agreement will be awarded by 
February 1, 1993, based on a competitive bid. 

8. Although the Board of Supervisors approved emergency 
legislation allowing the Parking Authority to enter into an 
agreement with a different operator, the Board of Supervisors 
did not specifically approve the present operator, Five Star 
Parking. The Parking Authority selected Five Star Parking 
based on Five Star Parking's third lowest bid in the 1985 
competitive bid for the St. Mary's Square garage. (The lowest 
bidder, Metropolitan Parking Corporation, was awarded the 
contract, and the second lowest bidder turned down the 
temporary contract offer.) 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 9 - File 127-92-9 

Department: Board of Permit Appeals 

Items: Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 

Municipal Code (Revenue and Finance/Business 
Regulations) by amending Section 8 thereof to increase 
specified Board of Permit Appeals filing fees. 

Purpose: Section 3.651 of the City Charter empowers the Board of 

Permit Appeals (Board) to hear appeals to the issuance, 
denial, or revocation of any permit or license issued by City 
departments. Following such hearing and such further 
investigation as the Board deems necessary, the Board may 
concur in the action of the City department authorized to 
administer such license or permit, or, by the vote of four of 
the five Board members, may overrule the action of such 
department and order that the permit or license be granted, 
restored, or refused. The Board's review and appeal powers 
include those of hearing appeals of determinations made by 
the Zoning Administrator concerning zoning districts, 
regulating the use of property in the City, or variances from 
any requirement of the zoning or set-back ordinances. Part 
III of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Revenue and 
Finance/Business Regulations), Section 8, prescribes the 
method of appeal to the Board of Permit Appeals and provides 
that a filing fee, in varying amounts depending on the 
particular permit or license appealed, be paid at the time of 
such filing. Currently, the Board of Permit Appeals recovers 
approximately 11.9 percent of its total operating costs through 
appeal fees and is requesting to increase its cost recovery for 
those services so that the level of General Fund support may 
be reduced. 



Description: The proposed ordinance would amend Part III of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code, Revenue and Finance, Section 8, 
"Method of Appeal to the Board of Permit Appeals," by (1) 
adding one fee and increasing other existing fees, and by (2) 
reducing the period during which appeals concerning 
Zoning Administrator determination decisions can be made 
from 15 days to 10 days. 

The following table shows FY 1992-93 workloads, current and 
proposed fees, fee increase percentages, and the resulting 
increase in revenues that would result from the fee increases 
on an annual basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Number Current 
of Permits Fee 
Citv Planning 

Variance, Zoning Administrator Determi- 
nation and Interpretation, and Planning 
Commission action: 



Projected 

Percent Annual 

Proposed Fee Revenue 

Fee Increase Increase 



38 



$200 



$400 



100.0 



Department of Public Works 



$7,600 



Residential Hotel and Apart. Conversion 
Building, Demolition, and other Permit 
Imposition of Penalty 


2 
146 
103 


200 

100 

40 


350 
100 
200 


75.0 



400.0 


300 



16,480 


Police Department 

Denial or Granting of Permit 

Entity 

Individual 
Revocation or Suspension of Permit 


8 
3 
13 


150 

50 

150 


250 
100 
250 


66.7 

100.0 

66.7 


800 

150 

1,300 


Appeal From anv Other Decision or Order 
Fire, ISCOTT, Public Health, Recreation 
and Park, Street Artist 


2 


100 


200 


100.0 


200 


Request for Rehearing 




51 


30 


100 


233.3 


3,570 


Reauest for Jurisdiction 




19 





100 


New Fee 


1,900 


Photocopv cost. Der page 




2,056 


0.25 


0.50 


100.0 


514 


Total Estimated Annual Revenue Increase 








$32,814 



The Board of Permit Appeals was originally budgeted for 
filing fee revenues of $30,000 in FY 1992-93, at the existing fee 
schedule rates. The Board of Permit Appeals estimates that 
the proposed fee increases would increase Departmental 
revenues on an annual basis by $32,814, as shown above, and 
by approximately $19,150 for the balance of FY 1992-93, 
assuming implementation of the new fee by December of 
1992. The $32,814 filing fee increase on an annual basis, 
which would increase total Departmental revenues to 
$62,814, annually, based on current workloads, represents a 
109.4 percent average increase over existing fee revenues. 

The FY 1992-93 increment of $19,150 would offset a $19,000 
requirement to reduce the General Fund support in the 
Department's budget. The $19,000 revenue increase has been 
included in the Mayor's revised FY 1992-93 budget as a part of 
the City's response to the State's reduced level of support to 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



the City, and has been recommended for approval by the 
Finance Committee. 

Actual and estimated revenues and costs of the Board of 
Permit Appeals for FY 1991-92 and FY 1992-93 are as follows. 



Comparison of Revenues 
With Expenditures 





FY 1991-92 

Actuals Based 

on Existing fees 


FY 1992-93 

Original 

Budget 


FY 1992-93 

Adjusted Budget 

with Proposed 

Fee Increases 


Board of Permit 
Appeals Costs 


$259,604 


$253,002 


$253,002 


Fee Revenues 


25.360 


30.000 


49.150 


Excess of Costs 
over Revenues 


$234,244 


$223,002 


$203,852 


Percent Cost 
Recovery 


9.8 


11.9 


19.4 



As the preceding table shows, the original budgeted 
percentage of cost recovery from fee revenues for the Board of 
Permit Appeals for FY 1992-93 was 11.9 percent. Cost 
recovery figures with the proposed additional $19,150 fee 
increase would result in total estimated revenues in FY 1992- 
93 of $49,150, or a cost recovery of 19.4 percent. The full year 
cost recovery under the proposed fee schedule would be 24.8 
percent ( $62,814 cost recovery of a $253,002 budget). 

Mr. Robert Feldman, Executive Director of Board of Permit 
Appeals, reports that the effect of absorbing a $19,000 budget 
reduction, which would occur if the proposed fee increases 
are not approved, would be the layoff of one of the Board's 
three clerical staffpersons, effective December of 1992. Mr. 
Feldman states that the resulting workload would be an 
inordinate burden on the remaining clerical staff. 

As previously stated, the proposed legislation would reduce 
the filing period for appeals of Zoning Administrator 
determination decisions to 10 days from the current 15 day 
filing period. The purpose of the amendment is to bring Part 
III of the Municipal Code into compliance with Charter 
Section 7.503, which limits the appeal period to 10 days. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 



Comments: 1. The most recent filing fee increase for City permits or 

licenses was for appeals from the granting or denial of a 
building, demolition, or other permit (other than residential 
hotel conversion), which was increased from $70 to $100 in 
August of 1989. The proposed legislation would not increase 
that fee. 

2. Prior to the filing fee increase cited above, all Board of 
Permit Appeals filing fees were last increased by 
approximately 33 percent in September of 1988, with the 
exception of the following: 

a. Appeal from the granting or denial of a building, 
demolition, or other permit, which remained at $70; 

b. Appeal from the imposition of a penalty, which 
remained at $40; 

c. Requests for rehearing, which remained at $30. 

3. The new appeal fee that would be established by the 
proposed legislation, "Request for Jurisdiction," in the 
amount of $100, would be to compensate the Board for its 
existing and continuing procedures, including hearings, of 
determining whether to extend the appeal period from that 
which is established, for a particular appeal, for reasons of 
improper notice or other good cause. The "Request for 
Jurisdiction" fee would be in addition to the basic filing fee, in 
the event the Board grants the request for jurisdiction. 

4. Mr. Feldman reports that the Board of Permit Appeals 
conducted duly noticed public hearings on the proposed fee 
increases on September 23 and September, 30, 1992, and that 
no testimony was presented at either hearing. 

5. At the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee meeting of 
September 30, 1992, during which the amended budget for the 
Board of Permit Appeals was considered, Mr. Feldman was 
requested by the Finance Committee to determine existing 
permit appeal fees in other jurisdictions. The Budget Analyst 
has reviewed a draft of the fees in other jurisdictions, as 
compiled by the Board of Permit Appeals, and notes that most 
of the jurisdictions canvassed provide no appeal process for 
building permits, if all codes are met, nor for penalties. We 
also note that fees for variance appeals range from $25 to 
$850. The Board is proposing to increase such fees from $200 
to $400. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Recommendation: Based on the prior policy decision of the Finance Committee 
and in order to keep the budget in balance, approve the 
proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Item 10 - File 156-92-4 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Private Industry Council (PIC) 

Resolution approving a 1992-93 expenditure plan for refugee 
employment and training funds and authorizing the 
President of the Private Industry Council of San Francisco, 
Inc. to sign, enter into, and execute the State contract. 

The Private Industry Council, a non-profit organization, has 
been designated by the Board of Supervisors to administer 
refugee funds on behalf of the City (Resolution 1120-87). These 
funds originate from the Federal Office of Refugee 
Resettlement and are allocated to the City through the State 
Department of Social Services. The Refugee Employment 
Social Services funds (RESS), Refugee Targeted Assistance 
Program (RTAP) Title VII funds and Mutual Assistance 
Association (MAA) funds are used to provide employment 
and training services to refugees who are receiving public 
assistance. The PIC contracts with community-based 
agencies for the provision of direct services to the program 
clients. The State allows the PIC to budget up to 15 percent of 
the total amount allocated for administrative purposes. 

The proposed sources of funds and the expenditure plan for 
the $852,781 is as follows: 



Sources 



RESS Funds 
RTAP Funds 
MAA Funds 

Total Refugee Funding 

Proposed Expenditures 

PIC Administration (15%) 

Contractual Services: 
International Rescue 
Committee 

Career Resource Development 
Center 

Third Baptist Church 

Jewish Vocational Services 



Contract Functions 



Case Management, Central Intake Point 
for Client Assessment, Referral and 
Tracking 

Vocational Training and Vocational 
English as a Second Language 

Employment Services 

Employment Services and Referral and 
Case Management of On-the-Job Training 
Services 



$428,761 

395,049 

2 3 .9 71 

$852,781 



$127,917 

117,481 

60,000 
23,113 
164,000 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

Proposed Expenditures Contract Functions 

Catholic Charities Employment Services and Referral and $196,853 

Case Management of On-the-Job Training 
Services 

Children's Council of San Child Care Services 15,000 

Francisco 

Mutual Assistance Employment Services 66,152 

Association Council 

Transportation and Ancillary 18,636 

Services* 

On-the-Job Training Set Aside 63,629 

Total $852,781 

*Ancillary services includes books, clothing, tools or fees needed for a training assignment. 

** These funds are used to reimburse employers for up to 50 percent of the hourly rate paid to 
program participants involved in on-the-job training. 



Comments 

1. The PIC reports that for 1992-93, a total of 317 refugees will receive 
services of which 249 or 78.5 percent will be placed in full time and part time jobs. 

2. The PIC advises that the State contract has an effective start-up date of 
July 1, 1992. Therefore, the proposed legislation should be amended to authorize 
the PIC to enter into the State contract retroactively. 

3. Mr. Greg Marutani of the PIC reports that in addition to requesting 
approval of the expenditure plan and authorization to enter into the State contract, 
the Agency also intended to request authorization for the acceptance and 
expenditure of the RESS, RTAP and MAA funds. The PIC advises that an 
authorization to apply for these funds is not necessary because the refugee funds 
represent a direct allocation which, unlike a grant, does not require that the 
Agency submit an application. Therefore, the title and the body of the legislation 
should be amended to add language which refers to authorizing the acceptance 
and expenditure of the refugee funds. 

4. The proposed 1992-1993 allocation of $852,781 is $87,949 or 9.3 percent less 
than the $940,730 allocation received for 1991-1992. 

5. Attached is a Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by the PIC, for 
each of the three sets of refugee funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 21, 1992 

6. A Disability Access Checklist, which addresses all of the program sites, 
is included in the Board of Supervisors file. 



Recommendations 

1. Amend the proposed legislation to (1) authorize the PIC to enter into the 
State contract retroactively and (2) add language to the title and the body of the 
legislation which refers to authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of the 
refugee funds. 

2. Approve the proposed legislation as amended. 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



SUMMARY OF GRANT REQUEST 
File No.: 156-92-4 (RESS) 

Grantor: Refugee Immigration Program Rranch/DSS Agency: Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc. 

Contact Person: Pat Patridge Section: N/A 

Address: 744 'P' Street Contact Person: Joyce Crum/Greg Marutani 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 621-6853 

Amount Requested: $428,761 Application Deadline: N/A 

Term: From: July 1, 1992 to: December 31, 1993 Notification Expected: N/A 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee - 
Full Board - 

I. Item Description: Request to accept and expend a new allocation grant in the amount of $428,761 from the period of 

July 1, 1992 to December 31, 1993 to provide employment and training services. 

II. Summary: 

To provide employment and training services to refugees receiving public assistance. 

III. Outcomes/Objectives: 

Training of refugees that leads to employment. 

IV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

Reduce services for refugees and increase the financial burden for the City and County of San Francisco. 



Financial Information: 


Column A 


Column B 


Column C 




Initial 


Proposed 


Total Grant 


Subcontract Services: 


N/A 


$364,447 


$364,447 


PIC Administration: 


N/A 


$64,314 


$64,314 


Total: 


N/A 


$428,761 


$428,761 



VI. Data Processing: N/A 



VB. Personnel: N/A 
FT/CSC N/A 
PT/CSC N/A 

Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this "rant: 

N/A 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so how 9 

N/A 



VIII. Contractual Services: Open Bid X_X Sole Source 



52 



October 15, 1992 



SUMMARY OF GRANT REQUEST 

File No.: 156-92-4 (MAA Incentive) 

Grantor: Refugee Immigration Program Branch/DSS Agency: Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc. 
Contact Person: Pat Patridge Section: N/A 

^Address: 744 'P' Street Contact Person: Joyce Crum/Greg Marutani 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 621-6853 

Amount Requested: $28,971 Application Deadline: N/A 

Term: From: July 1, 1992 to: September 30, 1993 Notification Expected: N/A 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee - 
Full Board - 

I. Item Description: Request to accept and expend a new allocation grant in the amount of $28,971 from the period of 

July 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 to provide acculturation services. 

II. Summary: 

To provide acculturation services to refugees by a Mutual Assistance Association organization. 
□J. Outcomes/Objectives: 

I To provide refugees with a better understanding of the systems and agencies with which they deal on a 
daily basis (i.e., health, transportation, law enforcement, education, etc.) 

, IV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

Reduce services for refugees and increase the financial burden for the City and County of San Francisco. 



Financial Information: 


Column A 


Column B 


Column C 




Initial 


Proposed 


Total Grant 


Subcontract Services: 


N/A 


$24,525 


$24,525 


PIC Administration: 


N/A 


$4,346 


$4,346 


Total: 


N/A 


$28,971 


$28,971 



VI. Data Processing: N/A 



VII. Personnel: N/A 
FT/CSC N/A 
PT/CSC N/A 

Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

N/A 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, how? 

N/A 



VIII. Contractual Services: Open Bid X X Sole Source 



53 



Octoboi is. 1992 



SUMMARY OF GRANT REQUEST 

File No.: 156-92-4 (RTAP '92) 

Grantor: Refugee Immigration Program Branch/DSS Agency: Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc. 

Contact Person: Pat Patridge Section: N/A 

Address: 744 'P' Street Contact Person: Joyce Crum/Greg Marutani 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 621-6853 

Amount Requested: $395,049 Application Deadline: N/A 

Term: From: Octoberl, 1992 to: September 30, 1993 Notification Expected: N/A 

Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Board 

I. Item Description: Request to accept and expend a new allocation grant in the amount of $395,049 from the period of 

October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993 to provide employment and training services. 

II. Summary: 

To provide employment and training services to refugees receiving public assistance. 

III. Outcomes/Objectives: 

Training of refugees that leads to employment. 

IV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

Reduce services for refugees and increase the financial burden for the City and County of San Francisco. 



Financial Information: 


Column A 


Column B 


Column C 




Initial 


Proposed 


Total Grant 


Subcontract Services: 


N/A 


$335,792 


$335,792 


PIC Administration: 


N/A 


$59,257 


$59,257 


Total: 


N/A 


$395,049 


$395,049 



VI. Data Processing: N/A 



VII. Personnel: N/A 
FT/CSC N/A 
PT/CSC N/A 

Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this "rant: 

N/A 

Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so how'' 

N/A 



VIII. Contractual Services: Open Bid X X Sole Source 



54 

October 15, 1992 









CALENDAR 

MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR HALLINAN - ITEMS 3-5 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



1. File 197-92-5 . Hearing to consider the final recommendations of the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to December 9, 1992, meeting. 

2. File 101-91-38.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Public 
Library, in the amount of $106, 89S, for geotechnical services during construction. 
(Public Library) 

ACTION: Continued to November 4, 1992, meeting. 

3. File 38-92-25 . [Gift Acceptance] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $5,480, 
from Wells Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park Department 
Summer Activities Brochure. (Recreation and Park Department) 

ACTION: Continued to November 4, 1992, meeting. 

4. File 27-92-10 . [Airport - Lease Modification] Ordinance approving Modification No. 
1 of land lease between American Airlines, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

5. File 47-92-7 . [Vallejo Street Garage] Ordinance authorizing the San Francisco 
Parking Authority, acting on behalf of the City, to terminate the City's lease with 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation for the operation of the Vallejo Street garage, and 
to award an interim, temporary operating agreement for operation of such garage 
until a public bidding procedure for the long-term operation of the garage is 
completed. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



1 



s0k$£Cic Library, 'Documents "Dcpt. 

\0.1S CITY AND COUNTY fWJ ° F SAN F ^H5^° QetTy %Otfl 

sp- DOCUMENTS DEPT= 

board of Supervisors oct 281992 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



h&)lds 



TO: Finance Committee 



October 26, 1992 



FROM: Budget Analyst (\ec« "***"&* 

SUBJECT: October 28, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 197-92-5 

1. This item is a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final 
Report. 

2. The Cultural Affairs Task Force, consisting of 59 representatives from 
various arts organizations, as well as from the private sector and City 
government, was created by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1991, to: (1) survey 
arts funding in San Francisco; (2) study current arts and cultural departments 
and policies in other major cities in the United States; (3) make recommendations 
to the Board of Supervisors on how San Francisco can enhance the public process 
and oversight, and improve the mechanisms by which the City supports the 
economic health and vitality of its diverse cultural life. The Cultural Affairs Task 
Force submitted its final report to the Board of Supervisors October 5, 1992. This is 
a hearing to consider the Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report. 

3. Grants for the Arts (GFTA) is a City organization, funded by Hotel Tax 
revenues, that provides on-going grant funding to virtually all eligible San 
Francisco arts organizations that apply for such funding, in proportion to their 
size. Grants for the Arts funds act as an on-going subsidy. Funds are not granted 
on a competitive basis, but all eligible applicants receive funding, subject to the 
availability of funds. The three basic eligibility requirements are as follows: (1) the 
organization must have 501(c)3 non-profit status or affiliation; (2) the organization 
must have a two year stable programming history in the area in which it is 
applying for funding; and (3) the organization must be located in San Francisco. 

4. According to Mr. John Kreidler of the San Francisco Foundation, a 
private nonprofit foundation, and a member of the Task Force, the Cultural 
Affairs Task Force was formed, in part, in response to criticism of the Grants for 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

the Arts program by certain members of the arts community. Mr. Kreidler 
advises that some members of the arts community believed that GFTA funds 
could be distributed more equitably because: (1) some organizations of comparable 
size received substantially different grant amounts; and (2) large arts 
organizations, such as the Exploratorium, the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet 
and ACT, by virtue of their size, received a disproportionate amount of GFTA's 
total funds. These large arts organizations are all Western European in their 
derivation, leading to allegations that the distribution of GFTA funds was racist. 
According to Mr. Kreidler, certain GFTA critics believed that funds should be 
redistributed, not based on size, but based on parity with the racial make-up of 
San Francisco. Under this distribution, if eight percent of San Francisco's 
population is African American, then eight percent of GFTA funds should be 
allocated to African American arts organizations. 

5. The Cultural Affairs Task Force established the following recommended 
principles for the City's arts policy: 

• The City should strive to achieve cultural equity; 

• All forms of City involvement in the arts should include public 
participation, such as review panels including members of the public; 

• Artistic creativity is a civic good, and its encouragement by government 
is a fundamental mark of a civilized society; 

• Artistic expression is vital to our civic health. The arts and arts 
education are not luxuries; 

• A healthy arts environment thrives at all levels, including individual 
artists, grassroots and other small and mid-size organizations, and 
large arts institutions; 

• Keeping all the arts in San Francisco should be a priority, since the arts 
are a major employer in the City. 

6. Mr. Kreidler reports that in general, GFTA has been successful in 
apportioning grants to arts organizations based on size. However, Mr. Kreidler 
advises that some variation in the grant amount received by comparable 
organizations does exist. However, any such disparity in grant amounts would be 
accidental, and not based on the organization's merit, size or seniority. To ensure 
that organizations of comparable size receive comparable grants, the Task Force 
recommends that the current GFTA progressive formula, under which small 
institutions receive a greater percentage of their annual budget than large ones, 
be changed from a set of categories to a graduated curve. Each organization would 
receive a grant delineated by this graduated curve, based on the size of the 
organization. This graduated curve would resemble an income tax table, Mr. 
Kreidler reports. According to the Task Force's report, this would eliminate 
sharp drops in funding as organizations grow or shrink incrementally, and 
would eliminate disparities between organizations of comparable budget size. Ms. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

Kary Schulman of Grants for the Arts advises that the implementation of this 
curve is likely to negatively impact certain small and multi-cultural 
organizations, which are currently the only organizations that receive funds 
above the proposed curve. 

7. To further ensure that GFTA funds are distributed equitably, the Task 
Force's report recommends the establishment of a panel including artists and 
other arts professionals to consider first time applications for Grants for the Arts 
funding. Currently, applications are considered by an advisory committee 
consisting of San Francisco artists, arts patrons, and business and community 
leaders with experience in non-profit and arts management, Ms. Schulman 
reports. According to Ms. Schulman, if decisions were made by a panel such as 
that recommended by the Task Force, the process may be slower and more costly 
to administer. As noted above, GFTA funds are awarded to all eligible applicants, 
and grant amounts are distributed purely based on a formula, with no 
discretionary decisions. 

8. The Task Force's report recommends that a second grant fund be 
established to correct the perceived racial and cultural inequities of Grants for the 
Arts. This fund, to be called the Cultural Equity Endowment, would focus on the 
following four priorities: 

a. Cultural Equity Initiatives; 

b. Contracts for artwork to individual creative artists in all disciplines; 

c. Project grants to small and midsize arts organizations; and 

d. Facilities acquisition program, or Artspace Initiative. 

9. Unlike GFTA, grants from the Cultural Equity Endowment would be 
made on a competitive basis. Such grants would not act as a subsidy, because 
grants would not necessarily be on-going. Instead, the Cultural Equity 
Endowment would make purposeful investments for smaller arts groups which 
are representative of minority cultures, Mr. Kreidler reports. For example, a 
group might receive a sum of money to support start-up costs, or to market their 
work for a limited time. Organizations that receive Cultural Equity Endowment 
funds would not be ineligible to receive GFTA on-going grants in addition to the 
competitive grant received from the Cultural Equity Endowment. 

10. This proposed Cultural Equity Endowment is targeted to consist of 1.0 
percent and 1.5 percent of Hotel Tax funds during the first and second years, 
respectively, and two percent of Hotel Tax funds thereafter. The Task Force's 
report assumes that the Cultural Equity Endowment would commence in 1993-94, 
and that Hotel Tax revenues would increase by five percent annually. Based on 
these assumptions, and based on FY 1992-93 estimated Hotel Tax revenues of 
$55,562,400 in 1992-93 generated from the basic 8 percent Hotel Tax rate, the 
Budget Analyst estimates that the total dollar amount of the Cultural Equity 
Endowment would be as follows: 

• $583,405 in FY 1993-94 (one percent of the current estimated revenues 
plus a five percent increase); 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

• $918,863 in FY 1994-95 (1.5 percent of the estimated FY 1993-94 revenues 
plus a five percent increase); and 

• $1,286,408 in FY 1995-96 (two percent of estimated FY 1994-95 total 
revenues plus a five percent increase. The Cultural Equity Endowment 
would consist of this two percent of Hotel Tax revenues in perpetuity; the 
estimated dollar amount would vary in future years based on the dollar 
amount of Hotel Tax revenues. 

Such an allocation would require that an amendment to the City's Hotel 
Tax Ordinance be approved by the Board of Supervisors. According to the Task 
Force report, this 1.0, 1.5 and eventually two percent of Hotel Tax Funds would 
consist of the following: 

(i) First, the Task Force requests that $300,000 be allocated to the Cultural 
Equity Endowment from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds. The Budget Analyst notes 
that all Hotel Tax revenues are allocated based on a formula defined in the 
Administrative Code, and no unallocated Hotel Tax funds exist. The portion of 
Hotel Tax revenues deposited to the General Fund supports General Fund 
activities; and 

(ii) Second, to provide the balance of the Cultural Equity Endowment, the 
Task Force recommends the reduction, in equal parts, of the allocations to the 
following five recipients: 

(1) Moscone Convention Center/Brooks Hall/Civic Auditorium, which 
currently receives 42 percent; 

(2) the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which currently receives 10 
percent; 

(3) the War Memorial, which currently receives ten percent; 

(4) Candlestick Park, which currently receives 6.23 percent; and 

(5) the Publicity and Advertising Fund, which currently receives 17 percent. 

In FY 1993-94, assuming that $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds 
supported a portion of the estimated $583,405 FY 1993-94 Cultural Equity 
Endowment, the revenues of these five organizations would be reduced by a total of 
$283,405, or $56,681 each. If $300,000 from "unallocated" Hotel Tax funds are not 
allocated to the Cultural Equity Endowment, assuming that the overall 
percentage goals for the Endowment do not change, the five organizations would 
support the entire estimated $583,405 for FY 1993-94, or $116,681 each. The 
amounts these five organizations would contribute would increase in FY 1994-95 
and FY 1995-96 to support the increase in the Cultural Equity Endowment from 1 
percent in FY 1993-94 to 1.5 percent in FY 1994-95 to 2 percent in FY 1995-96 and 
thereafter. 

The Budget Analyst notes that since the Hotel Tax revenues of the five 
recipients would be reduced by the same dollar reduction to support the Cultural 
Equity Endowment regardless of the total amount of such funds received by their 
organization, the impact of this proposed allocation on the five organizations 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

would vary significantly. For example, based on the formula contained in the 
Task Force's report to support the Cultural Equity Endowment, each 
organization's revenues would be reduced by an estimated $56,681 in FY 1993-94. 
$56,681 would represent a 1.6 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for 
Candlestick Park, which receives the lowest portion of such revenues, but only a 
.2 percent reduction in Hotel Tax revenues for the Moscone Center. 

The Task Force estimates that the dollar amount allocated to these five 
organizations would not decrease, because the Task Force anticipates that Hotel 
Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year in 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. 
Instead, the Cultural Equity Endowment funds would come from a reduction in 
future increases. Assuming the five percent annual increase in Hotel Tax 
revenues included in the Task Force's report is correct, the Budget Analyst 
concurs that each of the five organizations would receive increases in the dollar 
amount of their Hotel Tax revenues. However, the Budget Analyst notes that if the 
dollar amount of Hotel Tax funds allocated to these organizations does not 
increase over time, the value of the amount allocated to these organizations would 
decrease because the value of a dollar decreases over time due to inflation. In 
other words, expenses for these organizations would go up due to inflation, but if 
their anticipated revenue increase was allocated to the Cultural Equity 
Endowment, the organizations would need to identify areas for expenditure 
reductions. 

The Budget Analyst further notes that Candlestick Park Hotel Tax funds 
are currently entirely allocated to support bond issue debt service. In addition, 
approximately $24,121,500 million, or 62 percent of the Moscone Center's 
approximate total FY 1992-93 budget of $38,667,000 support the debt service. Any 
reduction in Hotel Tax funds that now support the debt service for Candlestick 
Park and Moscone Center would need to be paid from the General Fund, since 
debt service must be paid. 

Finally, the Budget Analyst notes that Hotel Tax revenues will not 
necessarily increase by 5 percent per year. Hotel Tax revenues are paid by 
tourists, and tourism generally declines during economic downturns. A 5 percent 
annual increase is higher than the current rate of inflation. Thus, an assumption 
that Hotel Tax revenues will increase 5 percent per year assumes that either the 
number of tourists staying in hotels or the rates charged by such hotels will 
increase in future years, an assumption that may not be realized because of the 
current economic recession. Historically, the 8 percent of the total 11 percent Hotel 
Tax has generated the following actual revenues: 

FY Amount Percent Increase 

1987^88 $44,357,994 n/a 

1988S9 48,810,018 10.0 % 

1989-90 46,120,913 (5.5) 

1990-91 50,588,835 9.7 

1991-92 52,389,209 3.6 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

As demonstrated by actual revenues over the past five years, Hotel Tax 
revenues are inconsistent. In 1989-90, Hotel Tax revenues actually decreased 5.5 
percent from the prior year. Most recently, revenues were less than the 5 percent 
annual increase estimated by the Task Force. 

(iii) Third, the Task Force recommends a 50 percent reduction of the .5 
percent of Hotel Tax Funds now assigned to the Unanticipated Events Fund, and 
the allocation of this .25 percent to the Cultural Equity Endowment. The Task 
Force's Report appears to recommend that this .25 percent would be in addition to 
the 1 percent, 1.5 percent, and 2 percent goals noted above. Ms. Schulman advises 
that GFTA generally expends all its Unanticipated Events funds either for City 
events, such as parades for successful professional sports teams, or for special 
events such as multi-cultural initiatives sponsored by small and medium sized 
arts organizations. 

11. According to Ms. Joanne Chow Winship, Director of the Arts 
Commission, the Arts Commission was recommended as the agency to 
administer the Cultural Equity Endowment. Ms. Winship advises that because of 
the nature of the proposed Cultural Equity Endowment, the Endowment would be 
expensive to administer. According to Ms. Winship, the Task Force envisioned a 
decision-making process involving a great deal of public input. In addition, 
grants to individual artists, which would include sample artwork, require that 
applications be inventoried and artwork be returned. These activities increase 
costs, so that approximately 20 percent of the Cultural Equity Endowment would 
be required to support administrative costs, Ms. Winship estimates. 

12. The Task Force recommends the restoration of the Arts Liaison position 
in the Mayor's Office. This Arts Liaison position was eliminated by the Mayor in 
the FY 1992-93 budget, resulting in a lay-off. The FY 1992-93 salary range for this 
Arts Liaison position, a Mayor's Assistant III, is $47,659 to $50,008 plus fringe 
benefits. According to the Task Force's report, 23 City organizations provide arts 
services, and each of these 23 organizations has entirely separate policies and 
procedures. Without a coordinating organization or individual, according to Mr. 
Jeff Jones, arts fundraiser and Task Force member, duplication of services may 
occur and arts resources may not be fully utilized. 

13. The Task Force recommends that, in addition to the Cultural Equity 
Endowment, GFTA funds should be increased by two percent. The Task Force 
recommends that such an increase be funded beginning in 1995, when the 
Candlestick Park revenue bonds have been retired, using a portion of the 6.23 
percent of Hotel Tax funds currently allocated to Candlestick Park. 

14. The Task Force recommends that a General Obligation bond issue be 
placed on the ballot in 1994 to support the capital improvement and infrastructure 
needs of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers. Mr. Jones advises that several 
recent propositions have proposed bond issues for capital improvements to Davies 
Symphony Hall and the Opera House. The Task Force recommends that any 
future General Obligation bond measures relating to arts issues include the 
Neighborhood Cultural Centers. The Task Force further recommends that 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

adequate maintenance of the Neighborhood Cultural Centers become a line item 
in the City budget. The Task Force did not specify a funding source for this 
proposed line item. These recommendations address the Task Force's concern 
with cultural and racial equity. 

15. The Task Force's report recommends that the Board of Supervisors 
request an independent study of the War Memorial Performing Arts Center to 
determine whether economies can be realized in the administration of the 
Performing Arts Center. Mr. Jones reports that duplication of effort may exist 
between the War Memorial administration and the administration of the San 
Francisco Symphony and Opera. Ms. Beth Murray of the War Memorial advises 
that the War Memorial must have a separate administration from the Symphony 
and the Opera, since the War Memorial is a Charter mandated department, 
while the Symphony and the Opera conduct businesses entirely separate from the 
City. 

16. Mr. Jones further reports that the Symphony and Opera pay 22# per 
square foot for office space in Davies Symphony Hall and the Opera House, which 
is well below the fair market value for civic center office space. Ms. Murray 
advises that the Symphony and Opera pay lower office rental rates because those 
organizations paid for the conversion of unusable space into office space, creating 
capital improvements which benefit the City at no cost to the City. The War 
Memorial is therefore collecting rent for space that was not previously usable. The 
low rents paid by those organizations are, in part, in exchange for the cost of 
capital improvements. 

17. The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the 
recommendations for better planning and community outreach by the Yerba 
Buena Center for the Arts that are contained in a recent report by Melanie Beene 
and Associates which was commissioned by the San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency. This report made a number of recommendations, in the following areas: 
Mission Statement; Facilities; Programs; Marketing and Audience Development; 
Public, Community and Constituent Relations; Governance; Management; and 
Budget Projections. The Redevelopment Agency has established an Action Plan in 
response to the recommendations contained in the Melanie Beene and Associates 
report. 

18. The Task Force recommends that Proposition J Children's Fund 
monies be allocated to an Arts Education Program. According to Section 6.415 of 
the Charter, services eligible for Children's Fund monies are limited to child 
care; job readiness, training and placement programs; health and social services; 
educational programs; recreation; delinquency prevention; and library services. 
Arts and cultural activities are not specifically included in this list of eligible 
programs, but certain arts and cultural activities may fit into the eligible 
categories, such as education, recreation, or job training. For example, an Arts 
Education Program, such as the one requested to be funded, would most likely fit 
under the category of educational programs. Mr. Jones advises that the Task 
Force recommends that the definition of eligible services be expanded to include 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

arts and cultural activities. Such an expanded definition would require a Charter 
amendment. 

19. According to the Task Force's report, the Task Force was unable to 
complete its survey of funding for the arts in San Francisco. The Task Force 
therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Budget Analyst to 
survey and analyze all City arts funding in order to obtain an accurate picture of 
how the City spends its arts dollars. 

20. In general, the portion of the Task Force's report regarding funding is 
focused on the creation of a Cultural Equity Endowment to be funded from a 
reallocation of Hotel Tax revenues. However, as mandated by the original 
legislation, the report does not provide an overall picture of current or potential 
sources of funding for San Francisco arts and cultural activities. In addition, the 
report does not contain a comparison of San Francisco arts activities to such 
activities in other major cities. 

21. The Cultural Affairs Task Force Final Report was unanimously 
approved by the Cultural Affairs Task Force, with one abstention. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Alemo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

Item 2 - File 101-91-38.4 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Library 

Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical 
services during construction of the new Main Library 

$106,898 

1988 Library Improvement Bonds 

The Board of Supervisors has previously approved a 
supplemental appropriation (File 101-91-38) in the amount of 
$4,015,003 for project services related to the construction of 
the new Main Library. Of the $4,015,003 appropriated, a total 
of $1,529,805 was placed on reserve pending selection of 
contractors and determination of the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors and contract cost details. Of the $1,529,805 
originally placed on reserve, a total of $549,772 has previously 
been released by the Finance Committee, leaving a balance of 
),033 on reserve. 



The balance of $980,033 in reserved funding includes $120,000 
for geotechnical services consulting. This item is a request to 
release $106,898 of the $120,000 reserve for geotechnical 
services. 

The geotechnical services consultant would 1) monitor the 
excavation activities for the new Main Library to determine 
that the actual soil conditions encountered during excavation 
are compatible with the design requirements by performing 
and evaluating soil density tests, 2) review and approve the 
shoring design submitted by the construction contractor, 3) 
observe excavation in preparation for the foundation and 4) 
monitor the pile driving associated with shoring and 
foundation work. 

The geotechnical consulting firm of Geo/Resource 
Consultants, Inc., was retained by the construction 
management contractor, O'Brien Krietzberg, as a 
subcontractor to assist in preparation of the Environmental 
Impact Report. According to Mr. Russ Abel of the 
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture, in 
order to maintain continuity of professional responsibility 
throughout the construction of the new Main Library, it is 
desirable to utilize the same geotechnical consultant for all 
phases of the planning, design and construction of the new 
Main Library. Therefore, Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
will continue as the geotechnical consultant subcontractor 

BOARD OF SLTl'KKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

under the prime contractor, O'Brien Krietzberg, for the new- 
Main Library construction project. 

Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., is a local business but is not 
an MBE or WBE firm. Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., has 
estimated the costs for their services totaling $106,898, as 
follows: 

Professional Services: 

Principal Engineer (90 hours @ $135 per hour) $12,150 

Project Engineer (220 hours @ $70 per hour) 15,400 

Staff Engineer (548 hours @ $65 per hour) 35,620 

Support Staff (74 hours @ $40 per hour) 2,960 

Other Professional Services 3.050 

Total-Professional Services $69,180 

Sub-Subcontracts: 

Shoring Review and Soil Observation $20,000 

Indicator Piles 8.000 

Total-Subcontracts 28.000 

Total - Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. $97,180 

O'Brien Kreitzberg administration of 
Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc., 
subcontract (10 percent per master agreement) 9,718 

Total Requested Release of Reserve $106,898 

Comment: As of the writing of this report, Mr. Abel was not able to 

provide the Budget Analyst with details of the Other 
Professional Services of $3,050 or the Sub-Subcontracts costs 
totally $28,000 and, therefore, requests that this release of 
reserved funds be continued for one week. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed release of reserved funds for one week 
as requested by the Bureau of Architecture. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 



Item 3 



File 38-92-25 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution accepting a cash gift of $5,480 from Wells 
Fargo Bank, for publication of the Recreation and Park 
Department Summer Activities Brochure. 

$5,480 

The Recreation and Park Department reports that Wells 
Fargo Bank has donated a $5,480 cash gift to fund the 
publication of the Department's 1992 summer activities 
brochure. The Recreation and Park Department advises 
that the $5,480 donation, which has already been 
accepted and expended by the Department, helped to 
fund the publication of approximately 70,000 brochures, 
which were distributed to San Francisco schools, 
libraries and community agencies. The total cost of 
these brochures was $13,882 with the balance of $8,402 
funded by General Fund monies ($5,402), Pier 39 ($2,000) 
and McKesson Foundation ($1,000). 

According to Ms. Diane Palacio, of the Recreation and 
Park Department, the $5,480 charitable donation by 
Wells Fargo Bank represented a good will effort on the 
part of the bank. 

1. As noted above, the Department has already accepted 
and expended the $5,480. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to authorize the 
Department to accept the gift retroactively. Ms. Palacio 
advises that the Department did not previously request 
authorization from the Board of Supervisors for the 
acceptance of this gift due to an unintentional 
administrative oversight. 

2. The Department is not requesting authorization to 
accept the $2,000 from Pier 39 and the $1,000 from 
McKesson Foundation because under Administrative 
Code Section 10.116, the Board of Supervisors authorizes 
City departments to accept cash gifts which do not 
exceed $5,000. 

Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the 
Department to accept the gift retroactively, and approve 
the resolution as amended. 



KOAKI) OF SUPKKV1SOKS 
HI II KJET ANALYST 

1 1 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 



Item 4 



File 27-92-10 



Department: Airport 

Item: Ordinance approving modification No. 1 of land lease 

between American Airlines Inc. and the City and County of 
San Francisco, acting by and through its Airports 
Commission. 

Description: The Airport reports that American Airlines, under a lease 

agreement with the City, occupies 57.44 acres of land (Plot 40) 
located at the eastern portion of the Airport adjacent to the 
bay. This land is used by American Airlines for aircraft 
maintenance. The maintenance facility was built with 
construction bonds issued by the San Francisco Airport 
Improvement Corporation, a nonprofit corporation. In order 
to secure the bond financing of this facility, American 
Airlines assigned the lease of this property to San Francisco 
Airport Improvement Corporation. The Corporation in turn 
subleased the property along with any facility and 
improvements back to American Airlines. Under the terms 
of the lease, which expires November 11, 1999, American 
Airlines currently pays the Airport rent in the amount of 
$20,000 per acre per year or $1,148,800 per year for the entire 
Plot. The lease has one ten-year option for renewal. At the 
end of the lease, the Airport will own the maintenance 
facility. 

The Airport advises that there is a need to expand its Fire 
House No. 2 facility which is located adjacent to Plot 40. 
According to the Airport, the present site of the facility is not 
sufficient in size to accommodate the necessary expansion. 

The Airport, with the concurrence of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), has identified a portion of Plot 40 
composed of 4.72 acres that is suitable for the proposed 
expansion of its Fire House No. 2. American Airlines, at its 
sole cost, has constructed only minor improvements on the 
4.72 acre area, consisting of a small paved area used as a 
parking lot for its support vehicles. The Airport advises that 
American Airlines has agreed to relinquish the 4.72 acres 
and the San Francisco Airport Improvement Corporation 
has concurred. 

The proposed ordinance would modify the lease between 
American Airlines and the Airport to reduce the area of 
space leased by American Airline for Plot 40 by 4.72 acres 
from 57.44 acres to 52.72 acres, resulting in American 
Airlines' relinquishment of the 4.72 acres to the Airport. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

Additionally, with the reduction in the amount of space being 
leased, American Airlines' annual rental would be reduced 
by $94,400 annually (4.72 acres x $20,000), from $1,148,800 to 
$1,054,400 annually. All other terms and conditions of the 
lease would remain in full force and effect. 

Comments: 1. The Airport advises that as a condition of American 

Airlines relinquishing the 4.72 acres to the City, the City will 
provide, at its sole expense, a replacement paved area for 
American Airlines' support vehicles on an unimproved area 
of Plot 40 which is mutually agreed to by both parties. The 
Airport estimates that the cost to install the paved area would 
be approximately $10,000 and will be paid for by Capital 
Project funds included in the Airport's 1992-1993 budget. 

2. The Airport reports that the $94,400 reduction in the 
annual rental paid by American Airlines to the Airport will 
have no net effect on the Airport's budget because the Airport 
will be leasing additional space to other airlines this fiscal 
year which will generate sufficient revenues to offset the 
$94,400 in revenues lost as a result of the proposed lease 
modification. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 



Item 5 -File 47-92-7 

Department 

Item: 



Department of Parking and Traffic 

Ordinance authorizing the San Francisco Parking Authority, 
a division of the Department of Parking and Traffic, acting on 
behalf of the City, to terminate the City's lease with 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation for the operation of the 
Vallejo Street garage, and to award an interim temporary 
operating agreement for operation of such garage until a 
public bidding procedure for the long-term operation of the 
garage is completed. 

Description: The Vallejo Street garage is a City-owned parking facility 

located at Vallejo Street between Stockton and Powell. The 
Vallejo Street garage has 163 parking spaces. 

According to Mr. Kevin Hagerty of the Parking Authority, the 
Parking Authority has discovered that the lease of the 
current operator of the Vallejo Street Garage, Metropolitan 
Parking Corporation, is no longer guaranteed by a 
performance bond. A performance bond is a guarantee, 
obtained from an insurance company, that a company will 
meet the requirements of a lease. The lease with 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation stipulates that the 
contractor must have a performance bond. Therefore the 
contractor is out of compliance with its lease. Also, without a 
performance bond, the Parking Authority has no assurance 
that the terms of the lease will be fulfilled. The Parking 
Authority is therefore requesting authorization to retain a 
different operator under the same terms and conditions as 
the current operator until such time as a new agreement 
could be awarded. 

According to Mr. Hagerty, the interim operator would be 
selected based on the Parking Authority's most recent 
competitive bid for the Vallejo Street Garage. The most recent 
competitive bid was conducted in 1989. City Parking 
Company was the second place bidder after Metropolitan 
Parking Corporation. Mr. Hagerty advises that City Parking 
Company has indicated a willingness to operate the Vallejo 
Street Garage on an interim basis, under the same terms 
and conditions as the current lease. This interim agreement 
would begin as soon as the Board of Supervisors approves the 
proposed ordinance, and continue until a new agreement is 
awarded based on a competitive bid. The Parking Authority 
anticipates that such a new agreement will be established by 
April, 1993, based on a competitive bid. 



BOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28, 1992 

Comments; 1. The specific interim agreement between the Parking 

Authority and the interim operator would not be subject to 
separate approval by the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Hagerty 
advises. However, as previously noted, the new agreement 
that is estimated to be completed in April, 1993, based on a 
new competitive bid, would be subject to separate approval by 
the Board of Supervisors. 

2. According to the Parking Authority, under the current 
terms and conditions of the lease, Metropolitan Parking 
Corporation receives 29.72 percent of gross receipts not 
including Parking Tax funds, and the City receives 70.28 
percent. The operator must support all of its operating 
expenditures from its share of gross receipts, Mr. Hagerty 
advises. 

3. According to Mr. Hagerty, the Parking Authority notified 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation, in writing, 30 days in 
advance, that Metropolitan Parking Corporation would be 
required to provide a performance bond by October 10, 1992, in 
conformance with the lease. Metropolitan Parking 
Corporation elected not to provide such a performance bond, 
according to Mr. Hagerty. 

4. The current agreement with Metropolitan Parking 
Corporation expires in March, 1994, Mr. Hagerty reports. On 
October 6, 1992, after Metropolitan Parking Corporation was 
notified that it would need to provide a performance bond, 
Metropolitan Parking Corporation gave six months written 
notice to terminate the lease. However, Mr. Hagerty reports 
that terminating the lease does not nullify the requirement 
that Metropolitan Parking Corporation -provide a 
performance bond. The Parking Authority is requesting 
authorization to retain an interim operator so that the lease 
with Metropolitan Parking Corporation can be terminated 
immediately. 

5. It should also be noted that Metropolitan Parking 
Corporation currently owes the City $3,870,773 in delinquent 
Parking Taxes. Metropolitan Parking Corporation has 
agreed to pay the City $300,000 prior to January 15, 1993, 
$110,000 per month from January 15, 1993 to January 14, 
1994, and $125,000 per month thereafter until the debt is paid 
with interest, according to Mr. Robert Fletcher of the City 
Attorney's Office. 

6. Currently, neither the selection of contractors to operate 
City-owned garages nor the leases themselves include 
mechanisms for enforcing the payment of City Parking 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
October 28. 1992 



Taxes. According to Mr. Hagerty, the Parking Commission 
passed a resolution at its October 20, 1992 meeting to 
introduce legislation to the Board of Supervisors allowing the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to receive information 
from the Tax Collector's Office on whether or not contractors 
are paying Parking Taxes, as required. Mr. Hagerty advises 
that all new leases will contain a provision that make non- 
payment of Parking Taxes cause for termination of the lease 
after 30 days. In addition, the Parking Authority has 
instituted a mechanism whereby contracts are awarded only 
if contractors have fully paid all of their debts to the City, 
including their City Parking Tax obligations, subject to the 
receipt of information from the Tax Collector's Office. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SI TPKKVKSOltS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16